37. UNITED ALLOY PHILS. CORP. v.
UCPB issued pursuant to a Credit Agreement which, in turn, stipulates that any legal action
Petitioner:
UniAlloy- domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading
on wholesale basis of alloy products
Respondents:
UCPB-banking corporation and respondent
Robert Chua- UCPB VP
Jakob Van Der Sluis- Dutch citizen and Chairman of UniAlloy
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation- assignee-in-interest of UCPB as regards
the loan account of UniAlloy
FACTS:
UniAlloy and UCPB entered into a Lease Purchase Agreement (LPA) wherein
UniAlloy leased from UCPB several parcels of land (156,372 sqm) in Misamis
Oriental.
The lease contract was from 1 Aug 1999-31 July 2002 for a monthly rent of P756/700
 parties stipulated that upon expiration of the lease, UniAlloy shall purchase the
leased properties for P300M to be paid on staggered basis; UniAlloy also obtained
loans from UCPB
UniAlloy filed a complaint with RTC Cagayan De Oro City against respondents
claiming:
1. that thru misrepresentation and manipulation, Resp Jakob took full control of
the management and operation of UniAlloy
2. respondents connived with one another to obtain fictitious loans for UniAlloy
evidenced by Promissory Notes
3. UCPB demanded payment for said loans
4. UCPB unilaterally rescinded the LPA
UniAlloy prayed that judgment be issued:
1. Ordering annulment/reformation of the Promissory Notes
2. Nullifying UCPB’s unilateral rescission of the LPA
3. Enjoining UCPB from taking possession of the leased premise
4. Ordering respondents to solidarily pay damages + atty’s fees
5. Issuance of TRO and/or write of preliminary injunction as ancillary prayer
RTC issued the TRO directing UCPB to cease and desist from taking possession of
the disputed premises.
Respondent Jakob filed an MTD on the ground of improper venue (other grounds
raised were forum-shopping, litis pendentia, and for being a harassment suit under
intra-corporate cases)
 argued that the LPA specifically provides that any legal action arising therefrom
should be brought exclusively in the proper courts of Makati City
RTC as Special Commercial Court GRANTED the MTD on the grounds of improper
venue, forum-shopping, and for being a harassment suit  held that the venue was
improperly laid considering that the Promissory Notes sought to be annulled were
thereto shall be initiated exclusively in the proper courts of Makati City
Upon UCPB’s motion, RTC directed the issuance of a writ of execution and
accordingly, the employees of UniAlloy were evicted from the leased premise and
UCPB’s representatives were placed in possession.
UniAlloy filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging RTC acted with GAD in
dismissing its petition on the grounds of improper venue, forum-shopping, and
harassment  DENIED
ISSUE: WON the Motion to Dismiss should be granted on the ground of improper
venue- YES
RULING:
-In general, personal actions must be commenced and tried:
i. where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides;
ii. where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides; or
iii. in the case of a resident defendant, where he may be found at the election of
the plaintiff
-Nevertheless, the parties may agree in writing to limit the venue of future actions
between them to a specified place
-In the present case, par. 18 of the LPA expressly provides that:
“any legal action arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be brought
exclusively in the proper courts of Makati City”
-Hence, UniAlloy should have filed its complaint before the RTC of Makati, and not
with RTC of Cagayan de Oro City
-The argument of UniAlloy that the subject matter of the Complaint is not the LPA, but
the fictitious loans that purportedly matured lacks merit  UniAlloy’s complaint sought
to declare null and void the unilateral rescission made by UCPB of its LPA
-What UCPB unilaterally rescinded is the LPA and without it, there can be no
unilateral rescission to speak of
-Hence, the LPA is the subject matter or at least one of the subject matters of the
Complaint  even assuming that the LPA is not the main subject matter, considering
that what is being sought to be annulled is an act connected and inseparably related
thereto, the Complaint should have been filed before RTC Makati
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED.
Winner: Respondent UCPB