G.R. No. 111077 Case Digest

G.R. No. 111077 July 14, 1994

Virgilio Gesmundo and Edna Gesmundo, petitioners,

vs JRB Realty Corporation, et al, respondents.

Ponente: Mendoza

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the order of RTC Makati, dismissing on the ground of proper venue a complaint which the spouses Gesmundo filed against the JRB Realty Corporation and Jaime Blanco.

On April 7, 1980, Virgilio Gesmundo as lessee and JRB represented by its president Jaime Blanco entered into s lease contract covering room 116 of blanco suites in Pasay City, with the stipulation that "venue for all suits, whether for branch hereof or damages or any cause between the LESSOR and the LESSEE, and persons claiming under each, being the courts of appropriate jurisdiction in Pasay City. . ."

On March 19, 1993, Gesmundo filed a complaint for damages against JRB alleging that they were shocked upon receiving a letter of termination of lease from JRB. During their telephone conversation, respondent Blanco told petitioner Virgilio B. Gesmundo that since the Corporation for which the latter works did not pay him (Blanco) his retainer fees, he did not want petitioners in any of his apartment units; that on November 18, 1992, petitioners sent respondents a letter asking for reconsideration of the termination of their lease; that on November 27, 1992, respondents sent petitioners a statement of accounts reiterating their letter of November 9, 1992; that on November 28, 1992, petitioners were forced to vacate the leased premises and consequently they leased an apartment at P2,500.00 monthly; and that respondents' action was "unwarranted, unjustified, malicious, abusive, and capricious." Petitioners prayed for P33,500.00 as actual or compensatory damages; P1,000,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs.

Respondents moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the venue of the action had been improperly laid in RTC Makati because of their contract stipulation that it should be in Pasay city. In opposition, petitioners alleged that hteir cause of action is not based on the lease contract and therefore not covered by the stipulation as to venue. Court dismissed petitioner's action on the ground of improper venue, it was also denied of reconsideration.

Issue: whether the venue was properly laid in the RTC of Makati.

Held: No. Stipulations limiting venues as valid and binding on the contracting parties.

Petitioners contention that neither of the parties are residents of Pasay City is irrelevant. Because it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended to fix the venue of their action in connection with the contract sued upon.

Petitioner's claim that their cause of action is not based on the lease contract because it seeks neither its implementation nor its cancellation. This contention is without merit. The warranting of award of damges is ultimately anchored on their right under the lease caontract.

On the petitioner's view that a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue is based on a mere technicality must not be sustained as well. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply just because their non-observance may have resulted to prejudice. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons.

Petition denied.