ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47701   June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 524

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47701. June 27, 1941.]

    THE MENTHOLATUM CO., INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL., Respondents.

    Araneta, Zaragoza, Araneta & Bautista, for Petitioners.

    Benito Soliven for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS; MEANING OF "DOING" OR "ENGAGING IN" OR "TRANSACTING" BUSINESS. — No general rule or governing principles can be laid down as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Indeed, each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The rule test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retire from it and turned it over to another. (Traction Cos. v. Collectors of Int. Revenue [C. C. S. Ohio], 223 F., 984, 987.) The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object of its organization.

    2. ID.; ID.; LICENSE REQUIRED BY SECTION 68 OF CORPORATION LAW; RIGHT TO SUE AND BE SUED. — The Mentholatum Co., Inc. being a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without the license required by section 68 of the Corporation Law, it may not prosecute this action for violation of trade mark and unfair competition. Neither may the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc. maintain the action here for the reason that the distinguishing features of the agent being his representative character and derivative authority (Merchem on Agency, sec. 1; Story on Agency, sec. 3; Sternaman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 N. Y., 21), it cannot now, to the advantage of its principal, claim an independent standing in court.

    3. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; OBJECT OF PLEADINGS; POSITION CONTRADICTORY TO, OR INCONSISTENT WITH, PLEADINGS. — The object of the pleadings being to draw the lines of battle between litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties (1 Sutherland’s Code Pleading, Practice & Forms, sec. 83; Milliken v. Swenseld, 46 N. D., 561, 563; 179 N. W., 920), a party cannot subsequently take a position contradictory to, or inconsistent with, his pleadings, as the facts therein admitted are to be taken as true for the purpose of the action.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 29, 1940, reversing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila and dismissing the petitioners’ complaint.

    On October 1, 1935, the Mentholatum Co., Inc., and the Philippine-American Drug, Co., Inc. instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, civil case No. 48855, against Anacleto Mangaliman, Florencio Mangaliman and the Director of the Bureau of Commerce for infringement of trade mark and unfair competition. Plaintiffs prayed for the issuance of an order restraining Anacleto and Florencio Mangaliman from selling their product "Mentholiman," and directing them to render an accounting of their sales and profits and to pay damages. The complaint stated, among other particulars, that the Mentholatum Co., Inc., is a Kansas corporation which manufactures "Mentholatum," a medicament and salve adapted for the treatment of colds, nasal irritations, chapped skin, insect bites, rectal irritation and other external ailments of the body; that the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., is its exclusive distributing agent in the Philippines authorized by it to look after and protect its interests; that on June 26, 1919 and on January 21, 1921, the Mentholatum Co., Inc., registered with the Bureau of Commerce and Industry the word, "Mentholatum", as trade mark for its products; that the Mangaliman brothers prepared a medicament and salve named "Mentholiman" which they sold to the public packed in a container of the same size, color and shape as "Mentholatum" ; and that, as a consequence of these acts of the defendants, plaintiffs suffered damages from the diminution of their sales and the loss of goodwill and reputation of their product in the market.

    After a protracted trial, featured by the dismissal of the case on March 9, 1936 for failure of plaintiff’s counsel to attend, and its subsequent reinstatement on April 4, 1936, the Court of First Instance of Manila, on October 29, 1937, rendered judgment in favor of the complainants, the dispositive part of its decision reading thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "En meritos de todo lo expuesto, este Juzgado dicta sentencia:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) Haciendo que sea perpetuo y permanente el interdicto prohibitorio preliminar expedido contra Anacleto Mangaliman, sus agentes y empleados, prohibiendoles vender su producto en la forma en que se vendia al incoarse la demanda de autos, o de alguna otra manera competir injustamente contra el producto de las demandantes, y de usar la marca industrial "MENTHOLIMAN" en sus productos;

    "(b) Ordenando al demandado Anacleto Mangaliman, que rinda exacta cuenta de sus ganancias por la venta de su producto desde el dia 1.o de marzo de 1934, hasta le fecha de esta decision, y que pague a las demandantes, en concepto de daños y perjuicios, lo que resulta ser la ganancia de dicho demandado;

    "(c) Condenando a dicho demandado, Anacleto Mangaliman, a pagar un multa de cincuenta pesos (P50) por desacato al Juzgado, y las costas del juicio; y

    "(d) Sobreseyendo la contra-reclamacion del demandado, Anacleto Mangaliman, contra las demandantes."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the Court of Appeals, where the cause was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 46067, the decision of the trial court was, on June 29, 1940, reversed, said tribunal holding that the activities of the Mentholatum Co., Inc., were business transactions in the Philippines, and that by section 69 of the Corporation Law, it may not maintain the present suit. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

    In seeking a reversal of the decision appealed from, petitioners assign the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the transactions of the Mentholatum Co., Inc., in the Philippines constitute transacting business’ in this country as this term is used in section 69 of the Corporation Law. The aforesaid conclusion of the Court of Appeals is a conclusion of law and not of fact.

    "2. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that whether or not the Mentholatum Co., Inc., has transacted business in the Philippines is an issue foreign to the case at bar.

    "3. The Court of Appeals erred in not considering the fact that the complaint was filed not only by the Mentholatum Co., Inc., but also by the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., and that even if the Mentholatum Co., Inc., has no legal standing in this jurisdiction, the complaint filed should be decided on its merits since the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., has sufficient interest and standing to maintain the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Categorically stated, this appeal simmers down to an interpretation of section 69 of the Corporation Law, and incidentally turns upon a substantial consideration of two fundamental propositions, to wit: (1) Whether or not the petitioners could prosecute the instant action without having secured the license required in section 69 of the Corporation Law; and (2) whether or not the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., could by itself maintain this proceeding.

    Petitioners maintain that the Mentholatum Co., Inc., gas not sold personally any of its products in the Philippines; that the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., like fifteen or twenty other local entities, was merely an importer of the products of the Mentholatum Co., Inc., and that the sales of the Philippines-American Drug Co., Inc., were its own and not for the account of the Mentholatum Co., Inc. Upon the other hand, the defendants contend that the Philippine- American Drug Co., Inc., is the exclusive distributing agent in the Philippines of the Mentholatum Co., Inc., in the sale and distribution of its product known as "Mentholatum" ; that, because of this arrangement, the acts of the former become the acts of the latter; and that the Mentholatum Co., Inc., being thus engaged in business in the Philippines, and not having acquired the license required by section 68 of the Corporation Law, neither it nor the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., could prosecute the present action.

    Section 69 of Act No. 1459 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 69. No foreign corporation or corporation formed, organized, or existing under any laws other than those of the Philippine Islands shall be permitted to transact business in the Philippine Islands or maintain by itself or assignee any suit for the recovery of any debt, claim or demand whatever, unless it shall have the license prescribed shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years or by a fine of not less than two thousand pesos, or by both such imprisonment and fine, in the discretion of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the present case, no dispute exists as to facts: (1) that the plaintiff, the Mentholatum Co., Inc., is a foreign corporation: and (2) that it is not licensed to do business in the Philippines. The controversy, in reality, hinges on the question of whether the said corporation is or is not transacting business in the Philippines.

    No general rule or governing principle can be laid down as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Indeed, each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The true test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to another. (Traction Cos. v. Collectors of Int. Revenue [C. C. A. Ohio], 223 F. 984, 987.) The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object of its organization. ] (Griffin v. Implement Dealers’ Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 241 N. W. 75, 77; Pauline Oil & Gas Co. v. Mutual Tank Line Co., 246 p. 851, 852, 118 Okl. 111; Automotive Material Co. v. American Standard Metal Products Corp., 158 N. E. 698, 703, 327, Ill. 367.)

    In its decision of June 29, 1940, the Court of Appeals concluded that" it is undeniable that the Mentholatum Co., through its agent, the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., has been doing business in the Philippines by selling its products here since the year 1929, at least." This is assailed by petitioners as a pure conclusion of law. This finding is predicated upon the testimony of Mr. Roy Springer of the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., and the pleasings filed by the petitioners. The complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 1, 1935, clearly stated that the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., is the exclusive distributing agent in the Philippine Islands of the Mentholatum Co., Inc., in the sale and distribution of its product known as the Mentholatum." The object of the pleadings being to draw the lines of battle between litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties (1 Sutherland’s Code Pleading, Practice and Forms, sec. 83; Milliken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 110 N. Y. 403, 18 N. E. 251; Eckrom v. Swenseld, 46 N. D. 561, 563, 179 N. W. 920), A party cannot subsequently take a position contradictory to, or inconsistent with, his pleadings , as the facts therein admitted are to be taken as true for the purpose of the action. (46 C. J., sec. 121, pp. 122-124.) It follows that whatever transactions the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., had executed in view of the law, the Mentholatum Co., Inc., being a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without the license required by section 68 of the Corporation Law, it may not prosecute this action for violation of trade mark and unfair competition. Neither may the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., maintain the action here for the reason that the distinguishing features of the agent being his representative character and derivative authority (Mechem on Agency, sec. 1; Story on Agency, sec. 3; Sternaman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 N. Y. 21), it cannot now, to the advantage of its principal, claim an independent standing in court.

    The appellees below, petitioners here, invoke the case of Western Equipment and Supply Co. v. Reyes (51 Phil., 115). The Court of Appeals, however, properly distinguished that case from the one at bar in that in the former "the decision expressly says that the Western Equipment and Supply Co. was not engaged in business in the Philippines, and significantly added that if the plaintiff had been doing business in the Philippine Islands without first obtaining a license, ’another and a very different question would be presented’." It is almost unnecessary to remark in this connection that the recognition of the legal status of a foreign corporation is a matter affecting the policy of the forum, and the distinction drawn in our Corporation Law is an expression of the policy. The general statement made in Western Equipment and Supply Co. v. Reyes regarding the character of the right involved should not be construed in the derogation of the policy-determining authority of the State.

    The right of the petitioner conditioned upon compliance with the requirement of section 69 of the Corporation Law to protect its rights, is hereby reserved.

    The writ prayed for should be, as it hereby is, denied, with costs against the petitioners.

    So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORAN, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Section 69 of the Corporation Law provides that, without license no foreign corporation may maintain by itself or assignee any suit in the Philippine courts for the recovery of any debt, claim or demand whatever. But this provision, as we have held in Western Equipment & Supply Company v. Reyes (51 Phil., 115), does not apply to suits for infringement of trade marks and unfair competition, the theory being that "the right to the use of the corporate and trade name of a foreign corporation is a property right, a right in rem, which it may assert and protect in any of the courts of the world even in countries where it does not personally transact any business," and that "trade mark does not acknowledge any territorial boundaries but extends to every mark where the traders’ goods have become known and identified by the use of the mark."cralaw virtua1aw library

    For this reason, I dissent from the majority opinion.

    G.R. No. 47701   June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 524


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED