Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > October 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. 75631 October 28, 1987 - OLYMPIA BUSINESS MACHINES CO., ET AL. v. E. RAZON, INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75631. October 28, 1987.]

OLYMPIA BUSINESS MACHINES CO. (PHIL.) INC. and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., Petitioners, v. E. RAZON, INC., TOYO LINE, LTD., and SEA BRIDGE CONTAINER SHIPPING LINES, INC., Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, J.:


Olympia Office Machines, Ltd., a foreign corporation with offices at Hongkong, shipped 300 portable typewriters to its sister company in Manila, Olympia Business Machines Company (Phil.), Inc. The shipment was insured against all risks by California Insurance Co., Ltd., another foreign corporation. The typewriters were discharged at South Harbor, Manila on December 5, 1977 into the custody of the carrier’s local agent which in turn turned it over to E. Razon, Inc. While in the latter’s possession, part of the shipment was stolen. Olympia (Phil.) filed a claim for loss with California Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereafter, simply California). In due course, the latter paid the former P289,626.31 in full settlement of the claim; and Olympia (Phil.) in consideration thereof, executed a subrogation receipt in which inter alia it did —

1)." . . agree that . . . (California) Insurance Company is subrogated to all of . . (its) rights of recovery on account of any and all such damage and/or loss (thus paid for) . . .;

2)." . . agree to assist the said Insurance Company in effecting such recovery;" and

3)." . . authorize the said Insurance Company to file claims and begin suit against any such carriers, vessel, person, corporation or government in . . . (its) names . . and appoint the officers and agents, of said Insurance Company and their successors, severally, . . . (its) agents and attorneys in fact, with irrevocable power to collect any and all such claims and to begin, prosecute, compromise or withdraw either in . . . (its) name or in the name of said Insurance Co., but at the expense of said Insurance Company, any and all legal proceedings which they may deem necessary to enforce such claim or claims including proceeding before any international/tribunal, and to execute in . . . (its) names any documents which may be necessary to carry into effect the purpose of this agreement . . ." 1

Both California and Olympia (Phil.) thereafter brought suit in the Manila Regional Trial Court against E. Razon, Inc., the carrier and the container company, which had earlier refused to make good the loss of the goods. Although E. Razon, Inc. filed an answer seasonably, relying principally on the defense that the "loss/damage as claimed in the complaint . . . was beyond . . . (its) control," it failed to appear at the pre-trial despite notice and was consequently declared in default; and after ex parte reception of plaintiff’s evidence, the Trial Court rendered judgment on February 1, 1980 for California and against E. Razon, Inc. Subsequently, however, on Razon’s motion for reconsideration, the judgment was set aside. E. Razon, Inc. filed an amended answer alleging the additional defense inter alia that since California "is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license to do so, . . . it cannot legally maintain suit in this jurisdiction, by itself or thru its agent." But once again, Razon failed to appear at the pre-trial despite notice. As a result, the Trial Court revived its Decision on February 1, 1980.

Razon appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court. It assigned three (3) errors to the Trial Court all of which the Appellate Court held to be "unmeritorious except the second assignment of error . . . (i.e.):chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"The lower court erred when it did not give due consideration that appellant has valid and meritorious defenses in the case consisting (among others) in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Appellee is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines and therefore, cannot legally maintain suit in this jurisdiction by itself or thru its agent. . . ." 2

The Intermediate Appellate Court opined 3 that since "plaintiff (California) is a foreign corporation which is not licensed to do business in the Philippines . . . (and there is no) allegation in the complaint that the transaction entered into by the plaintiff and sued upon by it . . is singular and isolated, it had no capacity to sue in Philippine courts. The Court deemed the situation to be on all fours with the case of Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., 17 SCRA 1040-1041, holding that where the parties plaintiffs are foreign corporations, the specific circumstance — that either they are duly licensed to do business in the Philippines, or "the transaction sued upon is singular and isolated" — "is an essential part of the element of plaintiffs’ capacity to sue and must be affirmatively pleaded", this being required by "the Revised Rules [Section 4, Rule 8) that ‘facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued . . .,’ must be averred.’"

The slightest reflection will however immediately make clear that between the factual settings of the Atlantic Mutual case and the case at bar, there are distinctions of no little significance. In the former, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. and Continental Insurance Co., two (2) American firms, brought suit as subrogees of the shipper and/or consignee of the goods insured, without joining the latter. In the case at hand, the action was instituted by both the subrogee, California Insurance Co., Ltd., and the subrogor, a domestic corporation, Olympia (Philippines) about whose capacity to sue no dispute exists. In Atlantic Mutual, the plaintiffs’ lack of capacity to sue was raised by the defendant at the earliest opportunity, through a motion to dismiss filed within the reglementary period to answer in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. In the case at bar, the defendant was twice declared in default, and the defense of lack of capacity to sue was not raised until after the first declaration of default had been lifted. Moreover, there is a pronouncement by the Court of Appeals in the instant case, that the defendant had no meritorious defenses save that of lack of capacity to sue on the part of the plaintiff.

These circumstances proscribe the application to the controversy at bar of the doctrine in Atlantic Mutual. The defendant’s conduct in this case strongly indicates the absence of any valid defense on its part against the plaintiffs’ claims: the defendant failed to appear for pre-trial despite notice, not once, but twice and was in consequence twice declared in default. The lack of any meritorious defense on its part was in fact confirmed by the declaration of the Court of Appeals, which it has not challenged, that all three (3) errors attributed by it to the Trial Court were "unmeritorious except the second," i.e., plaintiff’s lack of capacity to sue. Even assuming incapacity on the part of California, no such incapacity may be attributed to its co-plaintiff, Olympia Business Machines Co. (Phil.), Inc. And if strictly necessary, the latter could quite easily execute a cancellation of the deed of subrogation or of re-assignment of the right of action from California back to Olympia. Moreover, the dismissal of the case at this stage, would not bar the institution by California of the same action, this time alleging in its complaint that it was suing on a single, isolated transaction. But this would be an idle, circuitous ceremony in the light of the unchallenged declaration by the Court of Appeals of the absence of any meritorious substantial defense on the part of defendant Razon. This would be to accord undue importance and significance to technical rules, to allow an inflexible, unreasoning adherence to such technical rules to frustrate and defeat a plainly valid claim.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court subject of the appeal is reversed and that of the Trial Court, dated February 1, 1980 reinstated and affirmed, with costs against the respondents.

Teehankee (C.J.), Cruz, Paras * and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 8-9, 90.

2. Id., p. 28.

3. Id., Quetulio-Losa, J., ponente; Gaviola, Jr., Caguioa, Ines-Luciano, JJ., concurring.

* Designated a Special Member of the First Division.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29670 October 9, 1987 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29898 October 9, 1987 - IN RE: VICENTA PO v. RAYMUNDA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35469 October 9, 1987 - ENCARNACION BANOGON, ET AL. v. MELCHOR ZERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63855 October 9, 1987 - CU BIE, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73039 October 9, 1987 - PERFECTA CAVILI, ET AL. v. TEODORO N. FLORENDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35721 October 12, 1987 - WELDON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37631 October 12, 1987 - SANTIAGO NICOLAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46978 October 12, 1987 - ERNESTO ROBLES v. DELFIN FL. BATACAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52756 October 12, 1987 - MANILA MAHOGANY MANUFACTURING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58574 October 12, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANNY SEQUERRA

  • G.R. No. L-65505 October 12, 1987 - GABRIEL ABAD, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BR. LII, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67835 October 12, 1987 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. GREGORIA CRUZ ARNALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70826 October 12, 1987 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO P. GABRIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73786 October 12, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. AGAPITO

  • G.R. No. 75905 October 12, 1987 - REMIGIO O. RAMOS, SR. v. GATCHALIAN REALTY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76959 October 12, 1987 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61371 October 21, 1987 - ARTHUR BARANDA, ET AL. v. NORBERTO PADIOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33773 October 22, 1987 - GODOFREDO L. LORENZANA, ET AL. v. CRISPINA L. MACAGBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73882 October 22, 1987 - ROSA CANCIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34767 October 23, 1987 - OPERATORS INCORPORATED v. AMERICAN BISCUIT CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-35316 October 26, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38622 October 26, 1987 - VALENTIN BERMUDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45114 October 26, 1987 - APOLONIO SUMBINGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45159 October 26, 1987 - JOSE HERMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70810 October 26, 1987 - SERAFIA MACUA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70959 October 26, 1987 - ELIGIO LEYVA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76386 October 26, 1987 - CELSO AMARANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77645 October 26, 1987 - RICARDO SILVERIO v. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

  • A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC October 26, 1987 - IN RE: JUDGE ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-42003 October 27, 1987 - FULGENCIO OCUMIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50492 October 27, 1987 - VINCENT RIKER v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67929 October 27, 1987 - LEDA DINO GRAGEDA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987 - CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73461 October 27, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR MASANGKAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75510 October 27, 1987 - RUFINA SORIANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76053 October 27, 1987 - FERNANDO JUAN v. CELSO MUSÑGI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-30998, 31021, 31022 October 28, 1987 - AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING, INC., ET AL. v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-53813 to 53818 October 28, 1987 - JOSE C. BAGASAO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57889 October 28, 1987 - FLAVIANO NEMARIA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59690 October 28, 1987 - LUIS HAGOSOJOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61688 October 28, 1987 - VLASONS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69628 October 28, 1987 - PEDRO B. NARAG v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75631 October 28, 1987 - OLYMPIA BUSINESS MACHINES CO., ET AL. v. E. RAZON, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45515 October 29, 1987 - ASBESTOS INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING, INC. v. ELVIRO L. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49291-92 October 29, 1987 - SOCORRO M. ZABALLERO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67582 October 29, 1987 - ANTONIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67742 October 29, 1987 - MELITON GALLARDO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68477 October 29, 1987 - ANICETO BALILA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70191 October 29, 1987 - RODOLFO L. CORONEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74262 October 29, 1987 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORPORATION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75355 October 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO S. ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75925-26 October 29, 1987 - G. ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-30263-5 October 30, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37673 October 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR G. GAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56013 October 30, 1987 - LIWANAG AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60078 October 30, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79003 October 30, 1987 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. MARCELO R. OBIEN, ET AL.