STIPULATIONS ON VENUE

(PERMISSIVE STIPULATION)

64. Polytrade Corporation v Victoriano Blanco

FACTS:

Plaintiff Polytrade Co. filed a case to recover the purchase price of rawhide against Defendant Blanco in
the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Plaintiff has its principal office located in Makati, JP Rizal while
defendant Victoriano Blanco resides in Maycauayan, Bulacan. Prior to the case filed by the plaintiff, both
parties made a written stipulation in their contract that ***that the parties agree to sue and be sued in
the Courts of Manila*** Blanco moved to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue because as
per in the contract suit the parties agreed in writing that the stipulation abovementioned must be
followed. Hence, because of such covenant he can only be sued in the courts of Manila.

ISSUE:

W/N venue was properly laid.

HELD:

YES. The stipulation where the parties agree to sue or be sued in the Courts of Manila, was held not to
preclude the filing of the suit in the residence of the plaintiff or of the defendant. The Court held that the
plain meaning of the stipulation is that the parties merely consented to be sued in Manila. The qualifying
words that Manila and Manila alone is the venue are totally absent. The stipulation is merely
permissive.

Example of permissive stipulation:

In case of litigation, jurisdiction shall be vested in the court of Davao City absence of qualifying or
restrictive words in the agreement that would indicate that the place named is the only venue agreed
upon by the parties.