This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-09-23 |
|||||
| Even assuming that the alleged fourteen (14) transactions between Rimbunan and respondent did occur, petitioners argue that they still possess the legal capacity to sue respondent on the basis of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. Invoking Communication Materials Design, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[35] petitioners posit that the principle of estoppel prevents a person who had already benefited from a contract with a foreign corporation from later taking advantage of the latter's non-compliance with the statutes.[36] | |||||
|
2004-07-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is no general rule or governing principle laid down as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business in the Philippines. Thus, it has often been held that a single act or transaction may be considered as "doing business" when a corporation performs acts for which it was created or exercises some of the functions for which it was organized.[19] We have held that the act of participating in a bidding process constitutes "doing business" because it shows the foreign corporation's intention to engage in business in the Philippines. In this regard, it is the performance by a foreign corporation of the acts for which it was created, regardless of volume of business, that determines whether a foreign corporation needs a license or not.[20] | |||||
|
2004-07-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, there are exceptions to this rule. In a number of cases,[22] we have declared a party estopped from challenging or questioning the capacity of an unlicensed foreign corporation from initiating a suit in our courts. In the case of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[23] a foreign corporation instituted an action before our courts seeking to enjoin a local corporation, with whom it had a "Representative Agreement", from using its corporate name, letter heads, envelopes, sign boards and business dealings as well as the foreign corporation's trademark. The case arose when the foreign corporation discovered that the local corporation has violated certain contractual commitments as stipulated in their agreement. In said case, we held that a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without license may sue in Philippine Courts a Philippine citizen or entity that had contracted with and benefited from it. | |||||