POINTS TO PONDER:

1. Contracts have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good
faith. Everything that the contracting parties have stipulated therein shall control their
relations, as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy. (Principle of Autonomy of Contracts - Art 1306, Civil Code).
2. So in enforcing rights and performance of obligations under the contract, always refer to
the VALID CONTRACT of the parties. The contract may either provide for an arbitration
clause, penalty clause, etc. which will govern the parties.
3. It is settled that the contracting parties has the duty to comply with their contracts in
good faith.
4. A breach occurs where the contractor(or one of the parties) inexcusably fails to perform
substantially in accordance with the terms of the contract (MOVERTRADE
CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS G.R. No. 204835, September 22, 2015)
5. Breach of contract may give rise to an action for specific performance or rescission of
contract. It may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages filed pursuant to
Art. 1170 of the Civil Code. In the specific performance and rescission of contract cases,
the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction belongs to
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In the case for damages, however, the court that has
jurisdiction depends upon the total amount of the damages claimed. (SPS PAJARES vs
Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, GR no 212690, February 20, 2017) You must be
particular on what is your ultimate purpose in filing your action for breach because that
will be material in determining which court has the proper jurisdiction over your claim
or action.
6. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature
of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal trial courts or in the courts of first instance would depend
on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the
right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as
cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and
are cognizable exclusively by courts 1of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). (SPS
PAJARES vs Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, GR no 212690, February 20, 2017)
7. The venue of the action for breach of contract must be that stipulated in the contract,
i.e, there is an arbitration clause. The stipulation as to venue may be validly made by the
parties, either exclusively or merely descriptive or additional. But the same must be filed
 before a Regional Trial Court as this action is beyond pecuniary estimation which has the
proper jurisdiction over this kind of cases. Again, ONLY VENUE, not jurisdiction, may be
the subject of stipulation of parties.
8. In the absence of such stipulation as to venue, the claiming party shall file the action
before the RTC having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of either the
plaintiff or respondent, at the election of the plaintiff.
9. Breach of contract cases are subject to ordinary rules of Civil Procedure
10. If you are an aggrieved party to the decision or you are not satisfied with the ruling of
the Regional Trial Court, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the same court,
and/or appeal the same to the Court of Appeals via Rule 41 of Rules of Court.
11. If you are disputing pure questions of fact, appeal with Court of Appeals is proper.
If you are disputing pure questions of law, you may directly resort to the Supreme Court.
12. Normally, if the RTC and CA had the same ruling on a particular set of facts, the Supreme
Court will not delve upon the same under Rule 45, because issues which are factual in
nature are beyond ambit of Rule 45 and that such findings are generally binding.