Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > August 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18961 August 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CEBU STEVEDORING CO., INC.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18961. August 31, 1966.]

ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CEBU STEVEDORING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

William H. Quasha and Associates, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Deen Law Offices, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; FACTS SHOWING FOREIGN CORPORATION’S CAPACITY TO SUE SHOULD BE PLEADED. — A foreign corporation engaged in business in the Philippines can maintain suit in this jurisdiction if it is duly licensed. If a foreign corporation is not engaged in business in the Philippines, it can maintain such suit if the transaction sued upon is singular and isolated, in which case no license is required. In either case, compliance with the requirement of license, or the fact that the suing corporation is exempt therefrom, as the case may be, can not be inferred from the mere fact that the party suing is a foreign corporation. The qualifying circumstance, being an essential part of the element of the plaintiff’s capacity to sue, must be affirmatively pleaded.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This is an appeal from three orders of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the last one dismissing appellants’ complaint. These appellants — Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and Continental Insurance Company — are both foreign corporations existing under the laws of the United States. They sued the Cebu Stevedoring Co. Inc., a domestic corporation, for recovery of a sum of money on the following allegations: that defendant, a common carrier, undertook to carry a shipment of copra for delivery to Procter & Gamble Company, at Cebu City; that upon discharge, a portion of the copra was found damaged; that since the copra had been previously insured with plaintiffs they paid the shipper and/or consignee, upon proper claim and assessment of the damage, the sum of P15,980.30; and that as subrogee to the shipper’s and/or consignee’s rights, plaintiffs demanded, without success, settlement from defendant by reason of its failure to comply with its obligation, as carrier, to deliver the copra in good order.

Defendant moved to dismiss on two grounds: (a) that plaintiffs had "no legal personality to appear before Philippine courts and with no capacity to sue;" and (b) that the complaint did not state a cause of action. Both grounds were based upon failure of the complaint to allege compliance with section 69 of the Corporation Law, which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 69. No foreign corporation or corporation formed, organized, or existing under any laws other than those of the Philippines, shall be permitted to transact business in the Philippines 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 in the section immediately preceding. Any officer, or agent of the corporation or any person transacting business for any foreign corporation not having 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 hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by both such imprisonment and fine, in the discretion of the Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 68 of the Corporation Law is almost identical with the first part of Section 69 which requires a license before a foreign corporation may be permitted to transact business in the Philippines, but adds that such license may be obtained from the Director of Commerce upon order of the Secretary of Commerce and Industry.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss; and the trial court, in an order dated June 27, 1960, found the complaint deficient in that it failed to state that plaintiffs were duly licensed to transact business in the Philippines, but gave them an opportunity to amend said complaint within a period of ten days. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider and, after the motion was denied, filed a manifestation to the effect that they could not comply with the order to amend but would wait for the dismissal of the complaint so as to be able to elevate the matter to this Court on appeal. On September 6, 1960, the order of dismissal was issued.

The trial court would have plaintiffs amend the complaint by including therein an allegation that as foreign corporations they were duly licensed to engage in business in the Philippines. The implication of the court’s ruling is that without such license a foreign corporation may not sue in our courts in view of section 69 of the Corporation Law. Appellants contend that this is an erroneous interpretation of the statute; that a license is necessary before a foreign corporation may transact, that is, engage in, business in the Philippines, and if so engaged, before it may maintain a suit in our courts; but that if a foreign corporation is not doing business here it is not barred from seeking redress in our courts in proper cases, as when it sues on an isolated transaction, even if it has not obtained a license pursuant to Section 69.

Appellants’ contention is correct as far as it goes. It finds support in the decision written by Mr. Justice Malcolm in Marshall-Wells Co. v. Elser & Co., 46 Phil. 71 (September 1, 1924), where this Court said after analyzing Section 69 of the Corporation Law: "The law simply means that no foreign corporation shall be permitted to transact business in the Philippines, . . . unless it shall have the license required by law, and, until it complies with this law, shall not be permitted to maintain any suit in the local courts."cralaw virtua1aw library

"The object of the statute," this Court explained in that case, "was to subject the foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines to the jurisdiction of its courts. The object of the statute was not to prevent the foreign corporation from performing single acts, but to prevent it from acquiring a domicile for the purpose of business without taking the steps necessary to render it amenable to suit in the local courts. The implication of the Law is that it was never the purpose of the Legislature to exclude a foreign corporation which happens to obtain an isolated order for business from the Philippines, from securing redress in the Philippine Courts, and thus, in effect, to permit persons to avoid their contracts made with such foreign corporations. The effect of the statute preventing foreign corporations from doing business and from bringing actions in the local courts, except in compliance with elaborate requirements, must not be unduly extended or improperly applied. It should not be construed to extend beyond the plain meaning of its terms, considered in connection with its object, and in connection with the spirit of the entire law."cralaw virtua1aw library

But merely to say that a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines does not need a license in order to sue in our courts does not completely resolve the issue in the present case. The proposition, as stated, refers to the right to sue; the question here refers to pleading and procedure. It should be noted that insofar as the allegations in the complaint have a bearing on appellants’ capacity to sue, all that is averred is that they are both foreign corporations existing under the laws of the United States. The averment conjures two alternative possibilities: either they are engaged in business in the Philippines or they are not so engaged. If the first, they must have been duly licensed in order to maintain this suit; if the second, if the transaction sued upon is singular and isolated, no such license is required. In either case, the qualifying circumstance is an essential part of the element of plaintiffs’ capacity to sue and must be affirmatively pleaded.cralawnad

To be sure, under the Rules of Court (Section 11, Rule 15) in force prior to the promulgation of the Revised Rules on January 1, 1964, it was not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue except to the extent required to show jurisdiction of the court. In our opinion, however such rule does not apply in all situations and under all circumstances. The theory behind a similar rule in the United States is "that capacity . . . of a party for purpose of suit is not in dispute in the great bulk of cases, and that pleading and proof can be simplified by a rule that an averment of such matter is not necessary, except to show jurisdiction." 1 But where, as in the present case, the law denies to a foreign corporation the right to maintain suit unless it has previously complied with a certain requirement, then such compliance, or the fact that the suing corporation is exempt therefrom, becomes a necessary averment in the complaint. These are matters peculiarly within the knowledge of appellants alone, and it would be unfair to impose upon appellee the burden of asserting and proving the contrary. It is enough that foreign corporations are allowed by law to seek redress in our courts under certain conditions; the interpretation of the law should not go so far as to include, in effect, an inference that those conditions have been met from the mere fact that the party suing is a foreign corporation.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It was indeed in the light of these and other consideration that this Court has seen fit to amend the former rule by requiring in the Revised Rules (Section 4, Rule 8) that "facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred."cralaw virtua1aw library

The orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Regala, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Moore’s Federal Practice Under the New Rules, p. 582 (Anno. Rules of Court by Francisco, Vol. I, p. 475, 1948 Edition).




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






August-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 15905 August 3, 1966 NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG

  • G.R. No. L-17838 August 3, 1966 NASIPIT LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21885 August 3, 1966 GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ABIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14044 August 5, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20938 August 9, 1966 NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22534 August 9, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13896 August 10, 1966 IN RE: ERNESTO TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16488 August 12, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN RAQUINIO

  • G.R. No. L-19520 August 12, 1966 FELIPE NACORDA, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24672 August 12, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25660 August 12, 1966 LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, ET AL. v. TEODORO VAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11077 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI BUN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20020 August 23, 1966 TAN TE BUNTIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17243 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO VILLALBA

  • G.R. No. L-19832 August 23, 1966 IN RE: BERNARDO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21768 August 23, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23286 August 23, 1966 QUERUBIN PERFECTO v. ALFREDO SAPICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25635 August 23, 1966 JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-5796 August 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CAPADOCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24439 August 29, 1966 HADJI ARSAD SALI v. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18454 August 29, 1966 MARIANO CABILAO, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21230 August 29, 1966 GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21376 August 29, 1966 LUZ M. GIGARE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21796 August 29, 1966 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21287 August 31, 1966 ENRILE INTON v. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE

  • G.R. No. L-21930 August 31, 1966 AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16759 August 31, 1966 RAFAEL MORALES v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23635 August 31, 1966 TEODORO M. CASTRO v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18726 August 31, 1966 THOMAS M. GONZALEZ v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18961 August 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CEBU STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19376 August 31, 1966 TE ATTA UY VDA. DE CAJUCOM v. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19833 August 31, 1966 IN RE: COSME GO TIAN AN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20809 August 31, 1966 IN RE: LIM ENG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20821 August 31, 1966 BEATRIZ M. VDA. DE CASTILLO, ET AL. v. BLANCA CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21055 August 31, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES.) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21223 August 31, 1966 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-21442 August 31, 1966 SALUD S. PAPA v. GERVACIO S. BANAAG

  • G.R. No. L-21512 August 31, 1966 PROSPERO SABIDO, ET AL. v. CARLOS CUSTODIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21703-04 August 31, 1966 MATEO H. REYES, ET AL. v. MATEO RAVAL REYES

  • G.R. No. 21969 August 31, 1966 INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOFIA REYES FLORZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25994 and L-26004 to L-26046 August 31, 1966 BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26376 August 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO BALISACAN