Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 194 views

    Piltel Vs Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Armand Patiño Alforque
    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a dispute over the venue stipulation in cellular phone subscription agreements between Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PTC) and respondent Delfino Tecson. The Court ruled that the venue stipulation selecting Metro Manila as the exclusive venue is valid and binding, as the subscription agreements were contracts of adhesion that Tecson had sufficient opportunity to read and understand over the multiple subscriptions he acquired. While contracts of adhesion require careful scrutiny, unambiguous terms will be enforced if there was real opportunity for parties to reject them. Thus, the Court dismissed the case and required it be refiled in the proper venue according to the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Piltel Vs Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Armand Patiño Alforque
    194 views1 page
    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a dispute over the venue stipulation in cellular phone subscription agreements between Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PTC) and respondent Delfino Tecson. The Court ruled that the venue stipulation selecting Metro Manila as the exclusive venue is valid and binding, as the subscription agreements were contracts of adhesion that Tecson had sufficient opportunity to read and understand over the multiple subscriptions he acquired. While contracts of adhesion require careful scrutiny, unambiguous terms will be enforced if there was real opportunity for parties to reject them. Thus, the Court dismissed the case and required it be refiled in the proper venue according to the agreement.

    Original Description:

    Piltel vs Tecson

    Original Title

    Piltel vs Tecson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a dispute over the venue stipulation in cellular phone subscription agreements between Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PTC) and respondent Delfino Tecson. The Court ruled that the venue stipulation selecting Metro Manila as the exclusive venue is valid and binding, as the subscription agreements were contracts of adhesion that Tecson had sufficient opportunity to read and understand over the multiple subscriptions he acquired. While contracts of adhesion require careful scrutiny, unambiguous terms will be enforced if there was real opportunity for parties to reject them. Thus, the Court dismissed the case and required it be refiled in the proper venue according to the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    194 views1 page

    Piltel Vs Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Armand Patiño Alforque
    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a dispute over the venue stipulation in cellular phone subscription agreements between Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PTC) and respondent Delfino Tecson. The Court ruled that the venue stipulation selecting Metro Manila as the exclusive venue is valid and binding, as the subscription agreements were contracts of adhesion that Tecson had sufficient opportunity to read and understand over the multiple subscriptions he acquired. While contracts of adhesion require careful scrutiny, unambiguous terms will be enforced if there was real opportunity for parties to reject them. Thus, the Court dismissed the case and required it be refiled in the proper venue according to the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    THIRD DIVISION
    G. R. No. 156966 May 7, 2004
    PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION, petitioner,
    vs.
    DELFINO TECSON, respondent.
    D ! I S I O N
    ITUG, J.:
    The facts, b" and lar#e, are undisputed.
    On various dates in $%%&, Del'no !. Tecson applied for si( )&* cellular phone
    subscriptions +ith petitioner Pilipino Telephone !orporation )PI,T,*, a co-pan"
    en#a#ed in the teleco--unications business, +hich applications +ere each
    approved and covered, respectivel", b" si( -obiline service a#ree-ents.
    On ./ 0pril 1..$, respondent 'led +ith the Re#ional Trial !ourt of Ili#an !it", ,anao
    Del Norte, a co-plaint a#ainst petitioner for a 2Su- of Mone" and Da-a#es.2
    Petitioner -oved for the dis-issal of the co-plaint on the #round of i-proper
    venue, citin# a co--on provision in the -obiline service a#ree-ents to the e3ect
    that 4
    2Venue of all suits arisin# fro- this 0#ree-ent or an" other suit directl" or
    indirectl" arisin# fro- the relationship bet+een PI,T, and subscriber shall
    be in the proper courts of Ma5ati, Metro Manila. Subscriber hereb"
    e(pressl" +aives an" other venues.2
    $
    In an order, dated $/ 0u#ust 1..$, the Re#ional Trial !ourt of Ili#an !it", ,anao del
    Norte, denied petitioner6s -otion to dis-iss and re7uired it to 'le an ans+er +ithin
    $/ da"s fro- receipt thereof.
    Petitioner PI,T, 'led a -otion for the reconsideration, throu#h re#istered -ail, of
    the order of the trial court. In its subse7uent order, dated .8 October 1..$, the trial
    court denied the -otion for reconsideration.
    Petitioner 'led a petition for certiorari under Rule &/ of the Revised Rules of !ivil
    Procedure before the !ourt of 0ppeals.
    The !ourt of 0ppeals, in its decision of 9. 0pril 1..1, sa+ no -erit in the petition
    and a:r-ed the assailed orders of the trial court. Petitioner -oved for a
    reconsideration, but the appellate court, in its order of 1$ ;anuar" 1..9, denied the
    -otion.
    There is -erit in the instant petition.
    Section <, Rule <, of the Revised Rules of !ivil Procedure
    1
    allo+s the parties to a#ree
    and stipulate in +ritin#, before the 'lin# of an action, on the e(clusive venue of an"
    liti#ation bet+een the-. Such an a#ree-ent +ould be valid and bindin# provided
    that the stipulation on the chosen venue is e(clusive in nature or in intent, that it is
    e(pressed in +ritin# b" the parties thereto, and that it is entered into before the
    'lin# of the suit. The provision contained in para#raph 11 of the 2Mobile Service
    0#ree-ent,2 a standard contract -ade out b" petitioner PI,T, to its subscribers,
    apparentl" accepted and si#ned b" respondent, states that the venue of all suits
    arisin# fro- the a#ree-ent, or an" other suit directl" or indirectl" arisin# fro- the
    relationship bet+een PI,T, and subscriber, 2shall be in the proper courts of Ma5ati,
    Metro Manila.2 The added stipulation that the subscriber 2e(pressl" +aives an" other
    venue2
    9
    should indicate, clearl" enou#h, the intent of the parties to consider the
    venue stipulation as bein# preclusive in character.
    The appellate court, ho+ever, +ould appear to anchor its decision on the thesis that
    the subscription a#ree-ent, bein# a -ere contract of adhesion, does not bind
    respondent on the venue stipulation.
    Indeed, the contract herein involved is a contract of adhesion. =ut such an
    a#ree-ent is not per se ine:cacious. The rule instead is that, should there be
    a-bi#uities in a contract of adhesion, such a-bi#uities are to be construed a#ainst
    the part" that prepared it. If, ho+ever, the stipulations are not obscure, but are clear
    and leave no doubt on the intention of the parties, the literal -eanin# of its
    stipulations -ust be held controllin#.
    <
    0 contract of adhesion is >ust as bindin# as ordinar" contracts. It is true that this
    !ourt has, on occasion, struc5 do+n such contracts as bein# assailable +hen the
    +ea5er part" is left +ith no choice b" the do-inant bar#ainin# part" and is thus
    co-pletel" deprived of an opportunit" to bar#ain e3ectivel". Nevertheless, contracts
    of adhesion are not prohibited even as the courts re-ain careful in scrutini?in# the
    factual circu-stances underl"in# each case to deter-ine the respective clai-s of
    contendin# parties on their e:cac".
    In the case at bar, respondent secured si( )&* subscription contracts for cellular
    phones on various dates. It +ould be di:cult to assu-e that, durin# each of those
    ti-es, respondent had no su:cient opportunit" to read and #o over the ter-s and
    conditions e-bodied in the a#ree-ents. Respondent continued, in fact, to ac7uire in
    the pursuit of his business subse7uent subscriptions and re-ained a subscriber of
    petitioner for 7uite so-eti-e.
    In Development Bank of the Philippines vs. National Merchandising Corporation,
    /
    the
    contractin# parties, bein# of a#e and business-en of e(perience, +ere presu-ed to
    have acted +ith due care and to have si#ned the assailed docu-ents +ith full
    5no+led#e of their i-port. The situation +ould be no less true than that +hich
    obtains in the instant suit. The circu-stances in Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. eves,
    &
    +herein
    this !ourt invalidated the venue stipulation contained in the passa#e tic5et, +ould
    appear to be rather peculiar to that case. There, the !ourt too5 note of an acute
    shorta#e in inter4island vessels that left passen#ers literall" scra-blin# to secure
    acco--odations and tic5ets fro- cro+ded and con#ested counters. Hardl",
    therefore, +ere the passen#ers accorded a real opportunit" to e(a-ine the 'ne
    prints contained in the tic5ets, let alone re>ect the-.
    0 contract dul" e(ecuted is the la+ bet+een the parties, and the" are obli#ed to
    co-pl" full" and not selectivel" +ith its ter-s. 0 contract of adhesion is no
    e(ception.
    @
    AHRBOR, the instant petition is CR0NTD, and the 7uestioned decision and
    resolution of the !ourt of 0ppeals in !04C.R. SP No. &8$.< are RVRSD and ST
    0SID. !ivil !ase No. //@1 pendin# before the Re#ional Trial !ourt of Ili#an !it",
    =ranch <, is DISMISSD +ithout pre>udice to the 'lin# of an appropriate co-plaint b"
    respondent a#ainst petitioner +ith the court of proper venue. No costs.
    SO ORDRD.

    You might also like