VENUE STIPULATIONS OUSTING THE FORUM OF JURISDICTION - 52 PJP 21

Date Published:
  1. RECOMMENDED CITATION: DELA PEÑA, Mark Angelo S. (2024), “Venue Stipulations Ousting the Forum of Jurisdiction,” 52 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.

While venue stipulations are allowed by the Rules of Court, venue stipulations that oust Philippine courts of jurisdiction should be frowned upon. For example, a contract between two Filipinos that contains a choice of forum clause and states that the proper courts of Japan shall have exclusive venue over any case arising therefrom should be suspect.

While choice of forum clauses are generally valid under the principle of autonomy of contracts, if the such stipulation runs counter to the public policy on access to courts and would expose the other party to undue hardship and inconvenience, practically ousting Philippine courts of jurisdiction, the waiver of venue should yield to the higher dictates of the rules on jurisdiction.[1]

Considering that venue is for the convenience of the parties and for the promotion of the ends of justice, a venue stipulation that increases the expense and trouble of a litigant, discouraging him/her not to file his/her action at all, should be discarded.[2] This is even more so if the venue stipulation, in effect, deprives Philippine courts of jurisdiction.

The reason for this policy is clear from Article 2035 of the NCC. There, it says that no compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (a) the civil status of persons; (b) the validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (c) any ground for legal separation; (d) future support; (e) the jurisdiction of courts; and, (f) future legitime. This provision clearly declares as void any compromise upon the jurisdiction of courts. Hence, any restrictive venue stipulation that has the effect of depriving Philippine courts of jurisdiction is violative of the law and should be considered void ab initio.

[1] 335 Phil. 415 [ G.R. No. 119657. February 07, 1997 ] UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND KUBOTA AGRI-MACHINERY PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

[2] 300 Phil. 434 [ G.R. No. 104649. February 28, 1994 ] PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SALVADOR S. TENSUAN, JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, BRANCH 146 MAKATI; BRINELL METAL WORKS CORP.; SPS. JOSE & NALLY ANG, RESPONDENTS.