SWEET LINES INC vs TEVES

GR No. 37750, May 19, 1978

SANTOS, J.

FACTS:
Atty. Tandog and Atty. Tiro bought tickets at the branch office of Sweet Lines Inc, which
is engaged in the transportation of goods and passengers, at Cagayan de Oro. Upon
knowing that the vessel will not proceed to Bohol, but rather on Surigao, respondents
sought proper relocation to another vessel. However, since the vessel was already filled to
capacity, they were forced to agree to hide in the cargo section to avoid inspection. But
respondents alleged that they were exposed to the scorching trip during the trip and were
not later on honored and was constrained to pay for other tickets. Respondents filed a
case for damages in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. Petitioner moved to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue since Condition 14 of the ticket
stated that any action arising out of the conditions and provisions of the ticket shall be
filed in the courts of Cebu. The lower court denied the motion. Hence this petition.

Petitioner contend that the condition fixing the venue of actions in the City of Cebu is
proper since venue may be validly waived. In contrast respondent contend that while
venue of actions may be transferred from one province to another, such arrangement
requires the “written agreement of the parties”, not to be imposed unilaterally.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the condition on venue is proper.

HELD:
No, the condition on venue is not proper. Condition No. 14 is subversive of public policy
on transfers of venue of actions. For, although venue may be changed or transferred from
one province to another by agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule 4, Section
3, of the Rules of Court, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically
negates the action of the claimants, such as the private respondents herein. The
philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the convenience
of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice.

Public policy is “. . . that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen can
lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public
good. . .”. Under this principle “. . . freedom of contract or private dealing is restricted by
law for the good of the public.” 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, thus placing petitioner company at a decided
advantage over said persons, who may have perfectly legitimate claims against it.
COMPUSERV INC., vs PATTERSON
No. 95-3452, July 22, 1996

FACTS:
CompuServe, Inc., established in Ohio, provides an opportunity for subscribers to post
and sell software in the form of "shareware." CompuServe accepted payment for the
shareware from purchasers and remitted that payment, less a commission, to the authors
of the software. Richard S. Patterson, a resident of Texas, subscribed to CompuServe for
marketing his navigation software. Before use of the shareware service, Patterson entered
into a "Shareware Registration Agreement" ("SRA") that provided that Ohio law governed
the parties' relationship. Subsequent to the posting of Patterson's navigation software,
CompuServe itself began to market its own navigation software. Patterson believed that
CompuServe's software was confusingly similar to his own trademarked software and
notified CompuServe.

CompuServe filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, seeking a declaration that it had not infringed Patterson's trademarks.
Patterson filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court
granted Patterson's motion.

CompuServe filed an appeal arguing that Patterson's repeated availment of the shareware
sales procedures constituted minimum contacts with the forum state. CompuServe
further argued that the existence of the Shareware Registration Agreement clearly
stipulating that Ohio law governed disputes regarding the agreement meant that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an Internet service provider's home state can exercise jurisdiction over an
out-of-state author of software who had subscribed and received commissions by using
the Internet service provider.

HELD:
Yes. A forum state can exercise jurisdiction over an author of software who sells his
software via a Internet service provider based in the forum state because 1) the author
purposefully avails himself of the forum's laws by acting in the forum, 2) the cause of
action arises from that availment, and 3) the burden on the defendant author is less than
that on the forum state's interests in determining its laws concerning trademarks and
trade names.
GOLF OIL CORP. vs GILBERT
330 US 501, 1947

FACTS:
Respondent-plaintiff, Virginia resident, and public warehouse operator brought a tort
action in New York alleging that the petitioner-defendant, in violation of the ordinances
of Virginia, so carelessly handled a delivery of gasoline to his warehouse tanks and pumps
as to cause an explosion and fire which consumed the warehouse building, caused injury
to his business, and burned the property of customers in his custody under warehousing
agreements.

Petitioner-defendant oil company is a Pennsylvania corporation, qualified to do business

in both Virginia and New York, and it has designated officials of each state as agents to
receive service of process. When sued in New York, the defendant, invoking the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, claimed that the appropriate place for trial is Virginia, where
the plaintiff lives and defendant does business, where all events in litigation took place,
and federal courts are available to plaintiff and are able to obtain jurisdiction of the
defendant.

The case was brought in the US District Court solely because of diversity in citizenship of
the parties. The District Court considered that the law of New York as to forum non
conveniens applied and that it required the case to be left to Virginia courts. It therefore
dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals disagreed as to the applicability of New York
law, took a restrictive view of the application of the entire doctrine in federal courts and
reversed. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit pursuant to
the doctrine of forum non conveniens?

HELD:
No. The court concluded that the district court had not exceeded its powers or the bounds
of its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and remitting it to the courts of his
own community. The appeals court judgment was too restrictive. The task of the trial
court would be simplified by trial in Virginia. If trial was in a state court, it could apply its
own law to events occurring there. If in federal court by reason of diversity of citizenship,
the court would apply the law of its own state in which it is likely to be experienced. The
course of adjudication in New York federal court might be beset with conflict of laws
problems all avoided if the case is litigated in Virginia where it arose.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN vs PAHLAVI
62 NY 2d 474, July 5, 1984
Simons, J.

FACTS:
Plaintiff, the Islamic Republic of Iran, brings this action against Iran's former ruler, Shah
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and his wife, Empress Farah Diba Pahlavi. It alleges in its
complaint that defendants accepted bribes and misappropriated, embezzled or converted
35 billion dollars in Iranian funds in breach of their fiduciary duty to the Iranian people
and it seeks to recover those funds and 20 billion dollars in exemplary damages.

The action was commenced in November, 1979 by substituted service on the Shah made
at New York Hospital where he was undergoing cancer therapy. The Empress was
personally served at the same time at the New York residence of the Shah's sister, Ashraf
Pahlavi. Thereafter, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that it raised
non-justiciable political questions, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to
defective service of process on them and that the complaint should be dismissed on
grounds of forum non conveniens.

On this appeal plaintiff claims that the courts below erred, that the New York courts must
entertain this action because the record does not indicate that there is any alternative
forum available and because the United States Government undertook to guarantee
plaintiff an American forum to litigate its claims against the former royal family in the
hostage settlement agreements between it and plaintiff known as the Algerian Accords.
Furthermore, plaintiff contends that this was error because the availability of an
alternative forum is not merely an additional factor for the court to consider but
constitutes an absolute precondition to dismissal on conveniens grounds.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower courts erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:
No. Without doubt, the availability of another suitable forum is a most important factor
to be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss but we have never held that it was a
prerequisite for applying the conveniens doctrine and in Varkonyi we expressly described
the availability of an alternative forum as a "pertinent factor", not as a precondition to
dismissal. Nor should proof of the availability of another forum be required in all cases
before dismissal is permitted. That would place an undue burden on New York courts
forcing them to accept foreign-based actions unrelated to this State merely because a
more appropriate forum is unwilling or unable to accept jurisdiction