property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on acc

ountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakness, tender age an
dother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe

titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b

yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o

f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of

Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that

which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U

nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there

may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o

f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di

sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne

ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t

o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.

There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is

hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b
y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a di
sadvantage on accountof his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakne
ss, tender age andother handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection
.
In line with that, the court ruled that Condition No. 14 should be held as voida
nd unenforceable for the following reasons:1. Under circumstances obligation in
the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers t
o the terms of the conditions printed at theback of the passage tickets.
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country'ss
everal islands, and with that, the facilities they offer leave much to be desire
d, thus,passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed
of, eventhrough circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this w
as precisely theexperience of Tandog and Tiro. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly just andproper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for cond
itions that may beprinted much charge them with having consented to the conditio
ns, so printed,especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print
, as in this case. Also, it should also be stressed that companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, posses a virtual m
onopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered b

y their franchise. This being so,shipping companies, like Sweet Lines, engaged i
n inter-island shipping, have a virtualmonopoly of the business of transporting
passengers and may thus dictate their terms of passage, leaving passengers with
no choice but to buy their tickets and availof their vessels and facilities.Last
ly, bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the low-incomeg
roups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of pe
titioner's vessels.
2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedin
gs of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumer
able passengers from different places of the country who, under Condition No. 14
, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu.
For, although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another b
yagreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules o
f Court,such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates th
e action of theclaimants. The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer o
f venue of actions isthe convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice.Considering the expense and trouble a passen
ger residing outside of Cebu Citywould incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decidenot to file the action at all. The condition
will defeat the ends of justice.On the other hand, Sweet Lines has branches or
offices in the respective ports of callof its vessels and can afford to litigate
in any of these places. Hence, the filing of thesuit in the CFI of Misamis Orie
ntal will not cause inconvenience or prejudice SweetLines.Public policy is that
principle of the law, which holds that no subject or citizen canlawfully do that
which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against thepublic good. U
nder this principle, the freedom of contract or private dealing isrestricted by
law for the good of the public.Petition for prohibition was dismissed.
Separate OpinionsBARREDO,
J.,
concurring: Although, agreements regarding change of venue areenforceable, there
may be instances where for equitable considerations and in thebetter interest o
f justice, a court may justify the laying of the venue in the place fixedby the
rules instead of following written stipulation of the parties. I take it that th
eimportance that a stipulation regarding change of the venue fixed by law entail
s issuch that nothing less than mutually conscious agreement as to it must be wh
at therule means.