FACTS:

The case involves a contract of sale between Universal Robina Corporation (petitioner) and Albert Lim (respondent). The petitioner sold grocery products to the respondent for a total amount of P808,059.88. The respondent, however, refused to settle his obligation after making partial payments despite repeated demands from the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money against the respondent in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 227, Quezon City.

Initially, on June 22, 1999, the trial court dismissed the complaint motu proprio, citing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The trial court reasoned that there was no connection between the parties and Quezon City, where the court sits, as the plaintiff corporation's principal office was in Pasig City, and the defendant was from Laoag City. In response, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and an amended complaint, stating that the parties agreed on Quezon City as the proper venue for any dispute regarding the transaction. The trial court granted the motion and admitted the amended complaint.

Following this, on December 6, 1999, summons was served on the respondent; however, he failed to file an answer within the prescribed period. Consequently, the trial court declared the respondent in default and allowed the petitioner to present its evidence ex parte. However, on April 17, 2001, the trial court directed the petitioner to file a memorandum of authorities on whether it can file a complaint in Quezon City, still uncertain about the proper venue. Subsequently, on May 11, 2001, the trial court dismissed the complaint again, this time on the ground of improper venue, stating that there was no connection between Quezon City and the parties. The trial court also noted that the stipulation on the back of the delivery receipt regarding venue in Quezon City was not included in the complaint and was not admitted to have been signed by the defendant. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.

The petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review, but it was dismissed for failing to explain why copies of the petition were served by registered mail instead of personal service, which violated the Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the appellate court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

RULING:

1. The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue. Despite the lack of a direct connection between Quezon City and the parties, the filing of the complaint in Quezon City was based on the stipulation at the back of the delivery receipt that venue shall be in Quezon City. The failure to include this stipulation in the complaint does not invalidate it, as the stipulation may be proved by other means.

2. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review for failure to comply with procedural requirements. Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88 and Administrative Circular No. 3-96 provide that subsequent compliance with the requirements of a petition for review/certiorari shall not warrant reconsideration of the order of dismissal, unless there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make such other disposition. In this case, the reasons alleged by the petitioner were not considered well-taken.

PRINCIPLES:

• Venue may be agreed upon by the parties. Stipulations regarding venue may be proven by other means even if not stated in the complaint.

• Subsequent compliance with procedural requirements does not automatically warrant reconsideration of dismissal, unless there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons.