THE CASE OF AUCTION IN MALINTA V. LUYABEN - 53 PJP 21

Date Published:
  1. RECOMMENDED CITATION: DELA PEÑA, Mark Angelo S. (2024), “The Case of Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben,” 53 PJP 21, available at <insert link> (last accessed on <date>).
  2. PJP BLOG: Although this content has received a favorable recommendation for citation from the admin team of PJP, it is not yet considered a peer-reviewed journal entry.
  3. CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjurisprudence.
This is the case of Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben (2007).[1]

In the case of Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben, the sole issue was whether the stipulation in the parties’ Bidders Application and Registration Bidding Agreement effectively limited the venue of the case exclusively to the proper court of Valenzuela City. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

The mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. It must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive, not merely permissive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.

In the Auction in Malinta case, the stipulation in the parties’ agreement, i.e., “all [c]ourt litigation procedures shall be conducted in the appropriate [c]ourts of Valenzuela City, Metro Manila,” evidently lacked the restrictive and qualifying words that would limit venue exclusively to the RTC of Valenzuela City. Hence, the Valenzuela courts should only be considered as an additional choice of venue to those mentioned under the Rules of Court. The filing of the complaint in the RTC of Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga was therefore found to be proper, respondent being a resident of Tabuk, Kalinga.

Notice that the term “shall be” was not found by the Supreme Court to be restrictive enough. When this case was decided in the 2007, improper venue was still one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the now-collapsed Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

[1] 544 Phil. 500 [ G.R. NO. 173979. February 12, 2007 ] AUCTION IN MALINTA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. WARREN EMBES LUYABEN, RESPONDENT.