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.