G.R. No. 156966 - Pilipino Telephone Corp. vs. Tecson

Respondent Delfino C. Tecson applied for six (6) cellular phone subscriptions with petitioner Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL) at various dates in 1996.
Each application was approved and embodied in six separate Mobiline Service Agreements between respondent and PILTEL.

On April 5, 2001, respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against PILTEL before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Lanao del Norte.
PILTEL moved to dismiss the complaint citing improper venue, relying on a venue clause in the Mobiline Service Agreements which prescribed that all suits arising from the agreement must be filed in the proper courts of Makati, Metro Manila, and that the subscriber expressly waives any other venue.

On August 15, 2001, the RTC of Iligan City denied PILTEL’s motion to dismiss and required PILTEL to file an answer within 15 days.
PILTEL filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail, which was also denied by the RTC on October 8, 2001.

PILTEL filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC orders.
The CA, in a decision on April 30, 2002, affirmed the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss, finding no merit in PILTEL’s petition.
PILTEL’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was likewise denied on January 21, 2003.

The venue stipulation in paragraph 22 of the service agreements clearly designated Makati courts as the exclusive venue for suits arising from the contract or the relationship between the parties.
The clause included an explicit waiver by the subscriber of any other venue.
The CA took the position that because the contract was a contract of adhesion, the venue stipulation did not bind respondent.
However, PILTEL argued that a contract of adhesion is not per se unenforceable, especially when the stipulations are clear and unequivocal.

Whether or not the stipulation on venue in the service agreements between respondent and PILTEL was valid, binding, and enforceable given that the contracts were contracts of adhesion.
Whether the venue clause in the contracts, which designates Makati courts exclusively, can preclude the filing of suits in the RTC of Iligan City.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss based on improper venue.