ASG Law

Tag: Doing Business

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations: When Can Philippine Courts Hear Your Case?
Philippine Courts Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations Not Doing Business in the Philippines

n

AVON INSURANCE PLC, BRITISH RESERVE INSURANCE. CO. LTD., CORNHILL INSURANCE PLC, IMPERIO REINSURANCE CO. (UK) LTD., INSTITUTE DE RESEGURROS DO BRAZIL, INSURANCE CORPORATION OF IRELAND PLC, LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD., PROVINCIAL INSURANCE PLC, QBL INSURANCE (UK) LTD., ROYAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TRINITY INSURANCE CO. LTD., GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. LTD., COOPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY AND PEARL ASSURANCE CO. LTD., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 51, YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, WORLDWIDE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents. G.R. No. 97642, August 29, 1997

nn

Imagine a Philippine company enters into a contract with a foreign corporation, and a dispute arises. Can that company automatically sue the foreign corporation in Philippine courts? The answer, as illuminated by the Supreme Court in Avon Insurance PLC vs. Court of Appeals, isn’t always straightforward. This case underscores the crucial principle that Philippine courts cannot simply assert jurisdiction over foreign entities that aren’t actively “doing business” within the country. This decision protects foreign corporations from being unfairly hauled into Philippine courts when their connection to the Philippines is minimal.

nn

In this case, Yupangco Cotton Mills sought to collect on reinsurance treaties from several foreign reinsurance companies. The central issue was whether these foreign companies, who conducted their reinsurance activities abroad and had no physical presence in the Philippines, could be subjected to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

nn

Understanding “Doing Business” in the Philippines

nn

The concept of “doing business” is central to determining whether a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines. Philippine law doesn’t offer a simple definition, so courts rely on a set of factors to determine if a foreign entity’s activities are substantial enough to warrant Philippine jurisdiction.

nn

The Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 11232) doesn’t explicitly define “doing business.” However, jurisprudence and related laws, such as the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7042), provide guidance. Article 44 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 offers an illustrative list, including:

nn
- Soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts
- Opening offices, whether called ‘liaison offices’ or branches
- Appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the Philippines
- Participating in the management, supervision, or control of any domestic business firm
- Any other act implying a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements
nn

The key is whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized. A single, isolated transaction generally doesn’t qualify as “doing business,” unless it demonstrates an intention to engage in ongoing business activities in the Philippines.

nn

The Case Unfolds: Yupangco vs. Foreign Reinsurers

nn

The story begins with Yupangco Cotton Mills securing fire insurance policies from Worldwide Surety and Insurance Co. Inc. These policies were, in turn, covered by reinsurance treaties with several foreign reinsurance companies, including the petitioners in this case. These reinsurance arrangements were brokered through C.J. Boatright and Co. Ltd., an international insurance broker.

nn

Unfortunately, Yupangco’s properties suffered fire damage during the policy periods. Worldwide Surety and Insurance made partial payments, but a balance remained. Worldwide Surety and Insurance then assigned its rights to collect reinsurance proceeds to Yupangco.

nn

Yupangco, as assignee, filed a collection suit against the foreign reinsurance companies in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Service of summons was made on the Insurance Commissioner, based on the premise that the foreign companies were doing business in the Philippines.

nn

The foreign reinsurance companies, appearing specially through counsel, filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over them. They maintained they weren’t doing business in the Philippines, had no offices or agents there, and that the reinsurance treaties were executed abroad.

nn

Here’s a breakdown of the legal proceedings:

nn
- Yupangco files collection suit in RTC Manila.
- Summons served on Insurance Commissioner.
- Foreign reinsurers file motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- RTC denies the motions to dismiss.
- Foreign reinsurers appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- CA affirms the RTC decision.
- Foreign reinsurers appeal to the Supreme Court (SC).
nn

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s decision, stating that the foreign companies’ reinsurance activities constituted “doing business” and that their filing of motions to dismiss amounted to voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. The case then reached the Supreme Court.

nn

Supreme Court Ruling: No Jurisdiction

nn

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the Philippine courts lacked jurisdiction over the foreign reinsurance companies. The Court emphasized that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the foreign companies were “doing business” in the Philippines. The reinsurance treaties, brokered internationally, didn’t establish a sufficient connection to the Philippines.

nn

The Court quoted:

nn

“There is no sufficient basis in the records which would merit the institution of this collection suit in the Philippines. More specifically, there is nothing to substantiate the private respondent’s submission that the petitioners had engaged in business activities in this country… It does not appear at all that the petitioners had performed any act which would give the general public the impression that it had been engaging, or intends to engage in its ordinary and usual business undertakings in the country.”

nn

The Court also addressed the issue of voluntary submission to jurisdiction, stating that the foreign companies’ special appearance to contest jurisdiction, through motions to dismiss, did not constitute a waiver of their jurisdictional objections.

nn

“As we have consistently held, if the appearance of a party in a suit is precisely to question the jurisdiction of the said tribunal over the person of the defendant, then this appearance is not equivalent to service of summons, nor does is constitute an acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction.”

nn

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting foreign corporations from being unfairly subjected to Philippine jurisdiction when their business activities in the country are non-existent or minimal.

nn

Practical Implications: Protecting Foreign Businesses

nn

This case provides crucial guidance for foreign corporations operating or considering operating in the Philippines. It clarifies the limits of Philippine courts’ jurisdiction and highlights the importance of structuring business activities to avoid being deemed as “doing business” in the Philippines without proper registration and licensing.

nn

For Philippine businesses, this case serves as a reminder that suing a foreign corporation in the Philippines requires careful consideration of jurisdictional issues. It’s essential to gather evidence demonstrating that the foreign corporation is indeed “doing business” in the Philippines or has otherwise submitted to Philippine jurisdiction.

nn

Key Lessons:

nn
- Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations not doing business in the Philippines.
- Filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction doesn’t automatically constitute voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
- The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that the foreign corporation is “doing business” in the Philippines.
nn

Frequently Asked Questions

nn

Q: What does
August 29, 1997
Doing Business in the Philippines: Establishing Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations

How to Determine if a Foreign Corporation is “Doing Business” in the Philippines

n

G.R. No. 113074, January 22, 1997

n

Many foreign companies aim to tap into the Philippine market, but understanding the legal definition of “doing business” is crucial. This case explores when a foreign corporation’s activities in the Philippines are enough to subject it to local jurisdiction, clarifying the nuances of agency, distribution, and independent transactions.

n

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine a foreign company selling products in the Philippines. If something goes wrong, can you sue them in a Philippine court? The answer depends on whether the company is “doing business” here. This concept is vital because it determines if Philippine courts have jurisdiction over foreign entities. The case of Alfred Hahn v. Court of Appeals and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) delves into this very issue, providing clarity on what constitutes “doing business” and its implications for legal proceedings.

n

Alfred Hahn, doing business as “Hahn-Manila,” sued Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW), a German corporation, for specific performance after BMW sought to terminate his exclusive dealership. The central legal question was whether BMW’s activities in the Philippines, particularly its relationship with Hahn, amounted to “doing business” such that Philippine courts could exercise jurisdiction over it.

n

LEGAL CONTEXT

n

The concept of “doing business” is defined under Philippine law to determine when a foreign corporation can be sued in local courts. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court governs service upon foreign corporations:

n

“§14. Service upon foreign corporations. — If the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.”

n

The Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (R.A. No. 7042) further clarifies what constitutes “doing business”:

n

“d) the phrase ‘doing business’ shall include soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether called ‘liaison’ offices or branches, appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the Philippines…and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings…”

n

However, the law also provides exceptions. It does not include “mere investment as a shareholder” or “appointing a representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines which transacts business in its own name and for its own account.”

n

For example, if a foreign company simply invests in a Philippine corporation without actively managing it, that’s generally not considered “doing business.” But if the foreign company directly solicits sales, manages local operations, or has a representative who isn’t truly independent, it likely falls under the definition.

n

CASE BREAKDOWN

n

The story began in 1967 when Alfred Hahn and BMW entered into a

January 22, 1997
Doing Business in the Philippines: When Can a Foreign Corporation Sue?

Foreign Corporations and the Right to Sue in the Philippines

G.R. No. 102223, August 22, 1996

Imagine a foreign company entering into a seemingly beneficial agreement with a local Philippine entity, only to find later that their partner is using legal loopholes to avoid their obligations. Can the foreign company seek justice in Philippine courts, even if they aren’t licensed to do business here? This question lies at the heart of many international commercial disputes.

The case of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals explores the complexities of determining when a foreign corporation is considered to be “doing business” in the Philippines and whether that status affects their right to sue in local courts. The Supreme Court clarifies these issues, providing important guidance for both foreign companies and local businesses.

Understanding “Doing Business” in the Philippines

Philippine law requires foreign corporations “transacting business” within the country to obtain a license. This requirement aims to subject these corporations to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. Section 133 of the Corporation Code states, “No foreign corporation, transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the Philippines…”

However, the law doesn’t define “doing business,” leading to various interpretations. The Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 provides some clarification, defining it as “soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts, opening offices…appointing representatives or distributors…participating in the management, supervision or control of any domestic business firm…and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings…”

Crucially, transacting business through independent intermediaries, like brokers or merchants acting in their own names, does not constitute “doing business” for the foreign corporation. The key question is whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized.

For example, if a foreign company simply exports goods to a Philippine distributor who then sells them under their own name, the foreign company is generally not considered to be doing business in the Philippines. However, if the foreign company directly solicits orders, manages local operations, or controls the distributor’s activities, they likely are “doing business.”

The Case: ITEC and ASPAC’s Agreement

In this case, ITEC, an American corporation, entered into a “Representative Agreement” with ASPAC, a Philippine corporation. ASPAC was to act as ITEC’s exclusive representative in the Philippines for selling ITEC’s products. Later, ASPAC even adopted “ITEC” into its corporate name, becoming ASPAC-ITEC (Philippines).

However, ITEC terminated the agreement, accusing ASPAC of using ITEC’s product information to develop its own competing products. ITEC then sued ASPAC in the Philippines to prevent them from selling these products and using the “ITEC” trademark.

ASPAC sought to dismiss the case, arguing that ITEC was an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines and therefore lacked the legal capacity to sue. The trial court and the Court of Appeals denied ASPAC’s motion.

The Supreme Court considered the following key points:

The terms of the “Representative Agreement,” particularly clauses restricting ASPAC from selling competing products and requiring ASPAC to act on ITEC’s behalf.

ITEC’s direct involvement in sales to PLDT (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company)

The “PLDT-ASPAC/ITEC PROTOCOL,” indicating a joint responsibility between ASPAC and ITEC.

The Court quoted:

“When ITEC entered into the disputed contracts with ASPAC and TESSI, they were carrying out the purposes for which it was created, i.e., to market electronics and communications products. The terms and conditions of the contracts as well as ITEC’s conduct indicate that they established within our country a continuous business, and not merely one of a temporary character.”

Despite finding that ITEC was indeed “doing business” in the Philippines, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against ASPAC. Here’s why:

The Court emphasized:

“A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may sue in Philippine Courts although not authorized to do business here against a Philippine citizen or entity who had contracted with and benefited by said corporation…One who has dealt with a corporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity is estopped to deny its corporate existence and capacity.”

The Court decided that ASPAC was estopped (prevented) from challenging ITEC’s capacity to sue because ASPAC had previously acknowledged ITEC’s corporate existence by entering into the “Representative Agreement.” ASPAC had benefited from this agreement and could not now deny ITEC’s right to sue.

Key Implications for Businesses

This case highlights the importance of understanding the rules regarding foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines. While unlicensed foreign corporations generally cannot sue in Philippine courts, there are exceptions.

The most significant exception is the doctrine of estoppel. If a Philippine entity has contracted with a foreign corporation and benefited from that relationship, they cannot later challenge the foreign corporation’s capacity to sue based on its lack of a license.

Key Lessons:

For Foreign Corporations: While obtaining a license is always recommended, you may still have recourse to Philippine courts if you have contracted with a local entity that has benefited from the agreement.

For Philippine Entities: Be aware that entering into contracts with foreign corporations may prevent you from later challenging their legal standing in Philippine courts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does “doing business” in the Philippines mean?

A: It generally refers to activities that imply a continuity of commercial dealings, such as soliciting orders, opening offices, or appointing representatives.

Q: Can an unlicensed foreign corporation ever sue in the Philippines?

A: Yes, under certain circumstances, such as when the opposing party is estopped from questioning its legal capacity.

Q: What is the doctrine of estoppel?

A: It prevents a party from denying a fact that they previously acknowledged, especially if the other party has relied on that acknowledgement to their detriment.

Q: What should a foreign corporation do before entering into a business agreement in the Philippines?

A: It’s highly advisable to consult with a Philippine attorney to determine whether they need a license to do business and to ensure that their agreements are legally sound.

Q: What should a Philippine entity do before contracting with a foreign corporation?

A: They should verify the foreign corporation’s legal standing and understand the implications of entering into a contract with an unlicensed entity.

Q: Does this ruling apply to all types of legal actions?

A: While this case specifically addresses the right to sue, the principles of “doing business” and estoppel can apply to other legal proceedings as well.

Q: What is the main takeaway from this case?

A: Even if a foreign corporation is “doing business” in the Philippines without a license, a Philippine entity that has contracted with and benefited from that corporation may be prevented from challenging the foreign corporation’s right to sue.

ASG Law specializes in Corporate Law and Commercial Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

August 22, 1996
Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations: Doing Business in the Philippines

Determining When a Foreign Corporation is “Doing Business” in the Philippines for Jurisdictional Purposes

G.R. No. 94980, May 15, 1996

Imagine a foreign company selling products in the Philippines. If a dispute arises, can Philippine courts hear the case? The key lies in whether the foreign company is considered to be “doing business” within the Philippines. This case clarifies the factors considered and the importance of proper allegations in the complaint.

Introduction

In today’s globalized world, businesses often operate across borders. This raises important questions about jurisdiction: When can a Philippine court exercise authority over a foreign corporation? The Supreme Court case of Litton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Gelhaar Uniform Company, Inc. provides valuable guidance on this issue, specifically focusing on what constitutes “doing business” in the Philippines and how it impacts the ability to serve summons on a foreign entity.

This case involved a dispute between Litton Mills, Inc., a Philippine company, and Gelhaar Uniform Company, Inc., a U.S. corporation, over a contract for the supply of soccer jerseys. The central legal question was whether Gelhaar was “doing business” in the Philippines, thus making it subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The resolution of this question hinged on the interpretation of Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of Court and the application of relevant jurisprudence.

Legal Context: “Doing Business” and Jurisdiction

The concept of “doing business” is crucial in determining whether a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court governs how summons can be served on foreign private corporations. However, it only applies if the foreign corporation is “doing business” in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court has defined “doing business” as performing acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or the prosecution of the purpose and object of the organization. It does not necessarily require a physical presence. Isolated transactions are generally not considered “doing business”, but a single transaction can be sufficient if it demonstrates an intent to engage in further business activities in the Philippines.

Here’s the exact text of Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 14, Section 12 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure), which is at the heart of this legal issue:

“Sec. 14. Service upon private foreign corporations. – If the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there is no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.”

For instance, consider a hypothetical U.S.-based software company that licenses its software to Philippine businesses, provides technical support from overseas, and actively markets its products in the Philippines. This company would likely be considered to be “doing business” in the Philippines, even without a physical office, because these activities show a clear intention to engage in ongoing commercial activity in the country.

Case Breakdown: Litton Mills vs. Gelhaar Uniform

The story begins when Litton Mills, Inc. agreed to supply Gelhaar Uniform Company, Inc. with soccer jerseys. Gelhaar, through its local agent, Empire Sales Philippines Corporation, required an inspection certificate before Litton could be paid via a letter of credit.

When Empire refused to issue the certificate for one shipment, Litton filed a complaint for specific performance with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig. Litton sought a mandatory injunction to compel Empire to issue the certificate.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

Initial Complaint: Litton filed a complaint against Empire and Gelhaar.

Temporary Injunction: The RTC issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, compelling Empire to issue the certificate.

Answer Filed: An attorney, Atty. Remie Noval, filed an answer on behalf of both Empire and Gelhaar.

Challenge to Jurisdiction: Later, the law firm of Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano and Hernandez entered a special appearance for Gelhaar, challenging the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that Gelhaar was a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines.

The trial court initially denied Gelhaar’s motion to dismiss. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, stating that Litton needed to first establish that Gelhaar was doing business in the Philippines before summons could be validly served.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court cited the Signetics Corporation v. Court of Appeals case, clarifying that the fact of doing business must, in the first place, be established by appropriate allegations in the complaint.

As stated by the Supreme Court:

“Hence, a court need not go beyond the allegations in the complaint to determine whether or not a defendant foreign corporation is doing business for the purpose of Rule 14, § 14. In the case at bar, the allegation that Empire, for and in behalf of Gelhaar, ordered 7,770 dozens of soccer jerseys from Litton and for this purpose Gelhaar caused the opening of an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of Litton is a sufficient allegation that Gelhaar was doing business in the Philippines.”

The Court also emphasized that the purchase of soccer jerseys was within the ordinary course of business for Gelhaar, which was engaged in the manufacture of uniforms. The acts indicated a purpose to do business in the Philippines.

Practical Implications: What Does This Mean for Businesses?

This case has significant practical implications for foreign corporations operating in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of carefully assessing whether their activities constitute “doing business” in the country. If so, they become subject to Philippine jurisdiction.

The ruling in Litton Mills also provides guidance for Philippine companies dealing with foreign entities. It clarifies the requirements for establishing jurisdiction over foreign corporations in legal disputes.

Key Lessons:

Allegations Matter: The complaint must contain sufficient allegations to establish that the foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines.

Ordinary Course of Business: If the foreign corporation’s activities in the Philippines are part of its regular business operations, it is more likely to be considered “doing business.”

Seek Legal Advice: Foreign corporations should seek legal advice to determine whether their activities in the Philippines subject them to local jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What constitutes “doing business” in the Philippines?

A: “Doing business” generally involves performing acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or the prosecution of the purpose and object of the organization. It doesn’t always require a physical presence.

Q: Is a single transaction enough to constitute “doing business”?

A: Generally, no. However, a single transaction can be sufficient if it demonstrates an intent to engage in further business activities in the Philippines.

Q: How can I determine if a foreign corporation is “doing business” in the Philippines?

A: Consider the nature and extent of the foreign corporation’s activities in the Philippines. Are they engaged in ongoing commercial activities? Do they have a resident agent or representative? Are their activities part of their regular business operations?

Q: What happens if a foreign corporation is found to be “doing business” in the Philippines without proper registration?

A: The foreign corporation may face penalties and may be barred from enforcing contracts in Philippine courts.

Q: What should I do if I’m unsure whether a foreign corporation is “doing business” in the Philippines?

A: Consult with a qualified attorney who can assess the specific facts and provide legal advice.

Q: What is the significance of Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of Court?

A: This rule outlines how summons can be served on foreign private corporations that are “doing business” in the Philippines. Proper service of summons is essential for establishing jurisdiction over the foreign corporation.

Q: Does having a local agent automatically mean a foreign company is doing business?

A: Having a local agent is a strong indicator, but the overall activities and intentions of the foreign company must be considered.

ASG Law specializes in Corporate Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

May 15, 1996

Previous Page
1 2

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, we cannot guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

The material on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Communication with ASG Law does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes in future matters.

ASG Law provides legal services in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Republic of the Philippines.

© 2025 ASG Law. All rights reserved.