Respondents rely on section 69 of the Corporation law, which provides:
SEC. 69. No foreign corporation or corporations formed, organized, or existing under any laws other than those of the Philippines shall be permitted to ... maintain by itself or assignee any suit for the recovery of any debt, claim, or demand whatever, unless it shall have the license prescribed in the section immediately preceding. ..."
A foreign corporation may, by writ of prohibition, seek relief against the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. And a foreign corporation seeking a writ of prohibition against further maintenance of a suit, on the ground of want of jurisdiction in which jurisdiction is not bound by the ruling of the court in which the suit was brought, on a motion to quash service of summons, that it has jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Antonio J. Villegas and Juan Ponce Enrile seek to recover from the herein petitioner damages upon an alleged libel arising from a publication of Time (Asia Edition) magazine, in its issue of 18 August 1967, of an essay, entitled "Corruption in Asia" which talks about the investigation of Manila Mayor Villegas due to the discovery of his excessive and unreasonable resources. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Time Magazine published a libelous article, publicly, falsely and maliciously imputing to Plaintiffs the commission of the crimes of graft, corruption and nepotism; that said publication particularly referred to Plaintiff Mayor as a case in point in connection with graft, corruption and nepotism in Asia; that said publication without any doubt referred to co-plaintiff Enrile as the high government official who helped under curious circumstances Plaintiff Mayor in lending the latter approximately P30,000.00 ($7,700.00) without interest because he was the Mayor's compadre; that the purpose of said Publications is to cause the dishonor, discredit and put in public contempt the Plaintiffs.
At the time of the publication of the allegedly offending essay, private respondents Antonio Villegas and Juan Ponce Enrile were the Mayor of the City of Manila and Undersecretary of Finance and concurrently Acting Commissioner of Customs, respectively, with offices in the City of Manila.
On motion of the respondents-plaintiffs, the respondent judge, on 25 November 1967, granted them leave to take the depositions "of Mr. Anthony Gonzales, Time-Life international", and "Mr. Cesar B. Enriquez, Muller & Phipps (Manila) Ltd.", in connection with the activities and operations in the Philippines of the petitioner, and, on 27 November 1967, issued a writ of attachment on the real and personal estate of Time, Inc.
Petitioner received the summons and a copy of the complaint at its offices in New York on 13 December 1967 and, on 27 December 1967, it filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, relying upon the provisions of Republic Act 4363.
ISSUE:
WON Republic Act 4363 is applicable to action against a foreign corporation or non-resident defendant.
HELD:
The assertion that a foreign corporation or a non-resident defendant is not inconvenienced by an out-of-town suit is irrelevant and untenable, for venue and jurisdiction are not dependent upon convenience or inconvenience to a party; and moreover, venue was fixed under Republic Act No. 4363, pursuant to the basic policy of the law that is, as previously stated, to protect the interest of the public service when the offended party is a public officer, by minimizing as much as possible any interference with the discharge of his duties.
That respondents-plaintiffs could not file a criminal case for libel against a non-resident defendant does not make Republic Act No. 4363 incongruous of absurd, for such inability to file a criminal case against a non-resident natural person equally exists in crimes other than libel. It is a fundamental rule of international jurisdiction that no state can by its laws, and no court which is only a creature of the state, can by its judgments or decrees, directly bind or affect property or persons beyond the limits of the state.5 Not only this, but if the accused is a corporation, no criminal action can lie against it,6 whether such corporation or resident or non-resident. At any rate, the case filed by respondents-plaintiffs is case for damages.
The dismissal of the present petition is asked on the ground that the petitioner foreign corporation failed to allege its capacity to sue in the courts of the Philippines. Respondents rely on section 69 of the Corporation law. Petitioner's failure to aver its legal capacity to institute the present petition is not fatal.
It is also advanced that the present petition is premature, since respondent court has not definitely ruled on the motion to dismiss, nor held that it has jurisdiction, but only argument is untenable. The motion to dismiss was predicated on the respondent court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain the action; and the rulings of this Court are that writs of certiorari or prohibition, or both, may issue in case of a denial or deferment of action on such a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment