Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CASE DIGESTS
Olympia Business
Machines (Phil) v E. Razon
1987
Narvasa, J.
Rods
FACTS:
Olympia Office Machines Ltd, foreign corp with offices in
Hongkong, shipped 300 portable typewriters to its sister
company in Manila, Olympia Business Machines Company
(Phil) Inc. The shipment was insured against all rick by
California Insurance Co., Ltd., another foreign corp. The
typewriters were discharged at Manila ultimately to E.
Razon, in whose possession the shipment was stolen.
Olympia (Phil) filed a claim with California Insurance, and
the claim was fully settled. The latter was subrogated in the
rights of Olympia (Phil) to recover on the lost shipment, and
in the subrogation receipt, it was stated that Olympia (Phil)
would assist California in effecting the recovery of the
amount. Both Olympia (Phil) and California brought suit in
Manila RTC against E. Razon, the latter refusing to make
good on the loss.
E. Razon failed to appear at the pre-trial and so it was
declared in default. A judgment was rendered for California
and against E. Razon. On MR, it was set aside, and Razon
filed an amended answer alleging that since California is a
foreign corp doing business in the Philippines without a
license, it cannot legally maintain this suit in the Philippines,
by itself, or thru its agent. However, Razon failed to appear
at pre-trial so the first decision was revived by the RTC.
Upon appeal to the IAC, that court held that the errors
assigned by Razon were unmeritorious except the 2 nd
assignment of error which is that Appellee is a foreign
corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippnes,
therefore, cannot legally maintain suit The court further
stated that since California is a foreign corporation not
licensed to do business here, and that there were no
allegations that the transaction it entered into is singular
and isolated, it had no capacity to sue. The IAC cited
Atlantic Mutual Insurance co. v Cebu Stevedoring, and that
the case was on all fours with this case. It held that where
the parties plaintiffs are foreign corps, the specific
circumstance that either they are duly licensed to do