Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY v. UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF TAIWAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173463 2010-10-13	GLOBAL BUSINESS HOLDINGS v. SURECOMP SOFTWARE NACHURA, J.
The determination of a corporation's capacity is a factual question that requires the elicitation of a preponderant set of facts.[22] As a rule, unlicensed foreign non-resident corporations doing business in the Philippines cannot file suits in the Philippines.[23] This is mandated under Section 133 of the Corporation Code, which reads: Sec. 133. Doing business without a license. - 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, but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.
	AM NO. 01-34-CA-J 2006-01-23	ARIEL AVILLA v. JUSTICE ANDRES B. REYES AZCUNA, J.
It must be noted that complainants" petition was not merely for the ordinary writ of preliminary injunction but for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Unlike an ordinary preliminary injunction which is a preservative remedy, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction requires the performance of a particular act that tends to go beyond maintaining the status quo and is thus more cautiously regarded. [7] Accordingly, the issuance of the writ is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute. [8] The period to study its propriety in the circumstances was, however, interrupted when complainants filed their motion for oral arguments, and by the succeeding incidents where comments were required and filed and by the inhibition of Justice Brawner.
	GR NO. 152228 2005-09-23	RIMBUNAN HIJAU GROUP OF COMPANIES v. ORIENTAL WOOD PROCESSING CORPORATION
Moreover, even without the foregoing ground, the reversal of the CA's Decision and the reinstatement of this case at the trial court level is still warranted. The lower court in its resolution correctly held that respondent is estopped from questioning petitioners' capacity to sue in this jurisdiction. The trial court found that respondent had contracted with petitioners and had in fact made a partial payment of US$150,000.00 on its obligation. After contracting with a foreign corporation, a domestic firm can no longer deny the former's capacity to sue.[49]
	GR No. 159586 2004-07-26	EUROPEAN RESOURCES v. INGENIEUBURO BIRKHAHN + NOLTE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a general rule, unlicensed foreign non-resident corporations cannot file suits in the Philippines. Section 133 of the Corporation Code specifically provides: SECTION 133. 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, but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws. A corporation has legal status only within the state or territory in which it was organized. For this reason, a corporation organized in another country has no personality to file suits in the Philippines. In order to subject a foreign corporation doing business in the country to the jurisdiction of our courts, it must acquire a license from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and appoint an agent for service of process. Without such license, it cannot institute a suit in the Philippines.[21]
	GR Nos. 155217 & 156393 2003-07-30	GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A writ of mandatory injunction requires the performance of a particular act and is granted only upon a showing of the following requisites - (1) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) the right of a complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Since it commands the performance of an act, a mandatory injunction does not preserve the status quo and is thus more cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive injunction. Accordingly, the issuance of the former is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt and dispute. [31]