GORDON, DENISE M.
SWEET LINE V TEVES branches or offices in the respective ports of call of its vessels and can afford to litigate in
G.R. No. L-37750, [May 19, 1978], 172 PHIL 674-684) any of these places. Hence, the filing of the suit in the CFI of Misamis Oriental, as was
done in the instant case, will not cause inconvience to, much less prejudice, petitioner.
PETITIONER: SWEET LINE, INC
Public policy is ". . . that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen
RESPONDENT: HON. BERNARDO TEVES, Presiding Judge, CFI of Misamis Oriental,
can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public
Branch VII, LEOVIGILDO TANDOG, JR., and ROGELIO TIRO
good . . .". Under this principle ". . . freedom of contract or private dealing is restricted by
law for the good of the public." Clearly, Condition No. 14, if enforced, will be subversive of
FACTS
the public good or interest, since it will frustrate in meritorious cases, actions of passenger
Atty. Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro bought tickets for Tagbilaran City via the port of Cebu.
claimants outside of Cebu City, thus placing petitioner company at a decided advantage
Since many passengers were bound for Surigao, M/S "Sweet Hope would not be proceeding to
over said persons, who may have perfectly legitimate claims against it. The said condition
Bohol. They went to the proper branch office and was relocated to M/S "Sweet Town" where
should, therefore, be declared void and unenforceable, as contrary to public policy — to
they were forced to agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of the officers of the
make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services.
Philippine Coastguard." and they were exposed to the scorching heat of the sun and the dust
coming from the ship's cargo of corn grits and their tickets were not honored so they had to
purchase a new one. They sued Sweet Lines for damages and for breach of contract of carriage
before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental who dismissed the complaint for improper
ORIGINAL TEXT REFORMED TEXT
venue. A motion was premised on the condition printed at the back of the tickets that actions
arising from "the provisions of this ticket shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of
Cebu” It is hereby agreed and understood that It is hereby agreed and understood that
–dismissed hence this instant petition for prohibition for preliminary injunction any and all actions arising out of the any and all actions arising out of the
"14. It is hereby agreed and understood that any and all actions arising out of the conditions and conditions and provisions of this ticket, conditions and provisions of this ticket,
provisions of this ticket, irrespective of where it is issued, shall be filed in the competent courts in irrespective of where it is issued, shall be irrespective of where it is issued, shall be
the City of Cebu filed in the competent courts in the City of filed in the competent courts in the City of
Cebu. Cebu to the exclusion of the other
courts.
ISSUE: W/N a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping can stipulate thru
However, this case involves a contract of
condition printed at the back of passage tickets to its vessels that any and all actions
adhesion. It is important that a stipulation
arising out of the contract of carriage should be filed only in a particular province or city
regarding change of the venue fixed by
law be mutually agreed upon to uphold the
rule of law.
HELD: NO. Petition for prohibition is DISMISSED. Restraining order LIFTED and SET
ASIDE
In the particular case at bar, there is actually no written agreement as to venue
between the parties in the sense contemplated in Section 3 of Rule 4, which governs the matter.
It is important that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entails is such that
nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be what the rule means. In the
instant case, as well pointed out in the main opinion, the ticket issued to private respondents by
petitioner constitutes at best a "contract of adhesion". In other words, it is not that kind of a
contract where the parties sit down to deliberate, discuss and agree specifically on all its terms,
but rather, one which respondents took no part at all in preparing, since it was just imposed upon
them when they paid for the fare for the freight they wanted to ship. It is common knowledge that
individuals who avail of common carriers hardly read the fine prints on such tickets to note
anything more than the price thereof and the destination designated therein
Condition No. 14 is subversive of public policy on transfers of venue of actions.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by
agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules of Court,
such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the
claimants, such as the private respondents herein. The philosophy underlying the
provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his
witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. Considering the expense and trouble a
passenger residing outside of Cebu City would incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decide not to file the action at all. The condition will thus
defeat, instead of enhance, the ends of justice. Upon the other hand, petitioner has
