Allows a foreign corporation or juristic person to

This preview shows page 62 - 64 out of 76 pages.

allows a foreign corporation or juristic person to bring an action inPhilippine courts for infringement of a mark or trade-name, for unfaircompetition, or false designation of origin and false description, whetheror not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines. (GeneralGarments Corporation vs. Director of Patents)Article 8 of the Paris Convention to which the Philippines became aparty provides that a tradename shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without theobligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of thetrademark. (Puma vs. IAC)A foreign corporation not doing business not doing business in thePhilippines needs no license to sue before Philippine courts forinfringement of trademark and unfair competition. (Le Chemise Lacostevs. Fernandez)In a suit involving the violation of the Revised Penal Code thecomplainant foreign corporations capacity to sue is not significant. (LeChemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez)CAPACITY TO SUEGeneral rule: A foreign corporation must affirmatively plead its capacityto sue in order that it may proceed and effectively institute a case in
Philippine courts.Exceptions:1.The action involves a complaint for violation of the Revised PenalCode.2.The foreign corporation is not suing or maintaining a suit but ismerely defending itself from one filed against it.The qualifying circumstance of whether or not a foreign corporation hasengaged in business in the Philippines is an essential part of theelement of a foreign corporation’s capacity to sue and must beaffirmatively pleaded. (Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. CebuStevedoring Co., Inc.)If the dismissal of the case, based on failure of the foreign corporation toaver its capacity to sue, would not, however, bar the institution of thesame action, dismissal should not be allowed, especially so if it wouldbe an idle, circuitous ceremony considering the absence of anymeritorious substantial defense of the defense of the defendant.Technical rules should not be accorded undue importance to frustrateand defeat a plainly valid claim. (Olympia Business Machines Co. vs.Razon, Inc.)Since petitioner is not maintaining any suit but is merely defending oneagainst itself (it did not file any complaint but only a corollary defensivepetition to prohibit the lower court from further proceeding with a suit thatit had no jurisdiction to entertain), its failure to aver its legal capacity toinstitute the present petition is not fatal. (Time, Inc. vs. Reyes)LAWS GOVERNING FOREIGN CORPORATIONSGeneral rule: Any foreign corporation lawfully doing business in thePhilippines shall be bound by all laws, rules and regulations applicableto domestic corporations of the same class.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 76 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
N/A
Tags
Corporation, De Facto Corporation

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture