74. Sweet Lines v. Judge Teves &Tandog & Tiro Issue: WON Condition No.
Issue: WON Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the petitioner's
Topic: Contract of Adhesion
Facts:
Private respondents Atty. Tandog and Tiro, a contractor by
professions, bought tickets in Cagayan De Oro from Petitioner Sweet
Lines which is a shipping company transporting inter-island
passengers and cargoes with Sweet Lines vessel, M/S "Sweet Hope"
bound for Tagbilaran City via the port of Cebu.
Unfortunately, when Tandog and Tiro found the vessel is not bound
to Bohol, since many passengers were bound for Surigao, Tandog and
Tiro went to the branch office for proper relocation to M/S "Sweet
Town".
However, the vessel was already filed to capacity, as such Tandog and
Tiro were forced to agree to hide at the cargo were during the trip
they were:
1. exposed to the scorching heat of the sun
2. dust coming from the ship's cargo of corn grits
3. in addition, the tickets they bought at Cagayan de Oro City for
Tagbilaran were not honored and they were constrained to
pay.
Hence, Tandog and Tiro filed a complaint for damages and for breach
of contract of carriage in CFI Misamis Oriental.
Sweet Lines argue: Motion to dismiss (MD) the complaint on ground
of improper venue. Under the Condition No. 14 behind the passage
ticket of Respondents, it reads that: …shall be filed in the competent
courts in the City of Cebu."
RTC: denied MD
passage tickets, which limits the venue of actions is valid and
enforceable? (NO)
WON a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping can stipulate
thru a condition printed at the back of passage tickets that any and all
actions arising out of the contract of carriage be filed only in a
particular province or city? (NO)
HELD:
Condition No. 14" printed at the back of the passage tickets, are
commonly known as "contracts of adhesion. The validly of which
depends on the peculiar circumstances as well as the nature of the
conditions or terms.
Other examples of adhesion contracts are: Insurance contracts, bills
of lading, contracts of sale of lots on the installment plan fall into this
category."
Here Condition No. 14 should be held as void and unenforceable for
the following reasons:
1. under circumstances obtaining in the inter- island shipping
industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of the
conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets
1. It is a matter of public knowledge. the piers are congested
with passengers with the piers are congested with passengers
2. The passengers immediate concern, are to board the vessels
in order to reach their destinations and as such it is hardly just
and proper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets
received from crowded/congested counters,
3. unlike the small print provisions of insurance contracts — the
common example of contracts of adherence — they are
entered with insured in full awareness of conditions, since the
 insured is afforded the opportunity to examine and consider
the same, passengers of inter-island vessels do not have the
same chance, since their alleged adhesion is presumed only
from the fact that they purchased the passage tickets.

2. Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue

of proceedings of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights
and interests of innumerable passengers in different parts of the
country

1. Venue may be changed or transferred from one province to

another by agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to
Rule 4, Section 3.
2. However, here the expense and trouble a passenger residing
outside of Cebu City would incur to prosecute a claim in the
City of Cebu, he would most probably decide not to file the
action at all. The condition will thus defeat, instead of
enhance, the ends of justice
3. Clearly, Condition No. 14, if enforced, will be subversive of the
public good or interest, since it will frustrate in meritorious
cases, actions of passenger claimants outside of Cebu City