Title
Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 119657
Decision Date
Feb 7, 1997
KUBOTA and UNIMASTERS' dealership agreement included a venue stipulation for Quezon City. UNIMASTERS sued in Tacloban City; KUBOTA contested venue. Supreme Court ruled the stipulation permissive, allowing Tacloban as proper venue, and KUBOTA’s participation did not waive objection.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 119657)

Facts:

Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. and Kubota Agri-Machinery Philippines, Inc. entered into a Dealership Agreement for Sales and Services on October 28, 1988, which contained a venue clause stating that “All suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed with/in the proper Courts of Quezon City” and required Unimasters to secure a P2,000,000 credit line with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company‑Tacloban Branch. On December 24, 1993, Unimasters filed Civil Case No. 93‑12‑241 in the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6, against Kubota, Reynaldo Go, and Metrobank, seeking damages for breach of contract and injunctive relief; the RTC issued a temporary restraining order the same day restraining Metrobank from effecting payments or charging Unimasters in connection with the credit line. Kubota filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue and a motion to transfer the injunction hearing on January 4, 1994; the injunction hearing proceeded on January 10–11, 1994, with Kubota’s counsel participating while expressly reserving the venue objection, and on January 13, 1994 the RTC authorized issuance of a preliminary injunction upon bond of P2,000,000.00; on February 3, 1994 the RTC denied Kubota’s motion to dismiss, ruling that filing in Tacloban was proper. Kubota sought relief by special civil action in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 33234), which held that the contractual venue clause limited venue exclusively to Quezon City and that Kubota had not waived its objection; the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, and Unimasters appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the stipulation in the Dealership Agreement that “All suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed with/in the proper Courts of Quezon City” operates to limit venue exclusively to Quezon City. Whether Kubota’s participation in the injunction hearing and cross‑examination of witnesses constituted a waiver of its objection to venue. Whether venue improperly laid in the Tacloban RTC deprived that court of jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.