Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Communication Materials v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Edren Mayo
    1) ITEC entered into a representative agreement with ASPAC to sell ITEC's electronic products in the Philippines in exchange for commissions. After the agreement ended, ITEC accused ASPAC of copying ITEC's products and selling them. 2) ASPAC argued the case should be dismissed under the principle of forum non conveniens, as ITEC was not properly licensed to do business in the Philippines. 3) The court ruled ASPAC was estopped from making this argument, as it had contracted with and benefited from ITEC. The court also determined it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff and defendant and could decide whether or not to hear the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Communication Materials v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Edren Mayo
    48 views2 pages
    1) ITEC entered into a representative agreement with ASPAC to sell ITEC's electronic products in the Philippines in exchange for commissions. After the agreement ended, ITEC accused ASPAC of copying ITEC's products and selling them. 2) ASPAC argued the case should be dismissed under the principle of forum non conveniens, as ITEC was not properly licensed to do business in the Philippines. 3) The court ruled ASPAC was estopped from making this argument, as it had contracted with and benefited from ITEC. The court also determined it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff and defendant and could decide whether or not to hear the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Original Title

    Communication Materials v. CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) ITEC entered into a representative agreement with ASPAC to sell ITEC's electronic products in the Philippines in exchange for commissions. After the agreement ended, ITEC accused ASPAC of copying ITEC's products and selling them. 2) ASPAC argued the case should be dismissed under the principle of forum non conveniens, as ITEC was not properly licensed to do business in the Philippines. 3) The court ruled ASPAC was estopped from making this argument, as it had contracted with and benefited from ITEC. The court also determined it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff and defendant and could decide whether or not to hear the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    Communication Materials v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Edren Mayo
    1) ITEC entered into a representative agreement with ASPAC to sell ITEC's electronic products in the Philippines in exchange for commissions. After the agreement ended, ITEC accused ASPAC of copying ITEC's products and selling them. 2) ASPAC argued the case should be dismissed under the principle of forum non conveniens, as ITEC was not properly licensed to do business in the Philippines. 3) The court ruled ASPAC was estopped from making this argument, as it had contracted with and benefited from ITEC. The court also determined it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff and defendant and could decide whether or not to hear the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    102223 August 22, 1996


    COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., ASPAC MULTI-TRADE, INC., (for-
    merly ASPAC-ITEC PHILIPPINES, INC.) and FRANCISCO S. AGUIRRE, petitioners,
    vs.
    THE COURT OF APPEALS, ITEC INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ITEC, INC., respondents.

    TOPIC: Forum Non Conveniens

    FACTS:
    ITEC entered into a contract with petitioner ASPAC referred to as "Representative Agreement”.
    Pursuant to the contract, ITEC engaged ASPAC as its "exclusive representative" in the Philippines for the
    sale of ITEC's products, in consideration of which, ASPAC was paid a stipulated commission. The said
    agreement was initially for a term of twenty-four months. After the lapse of the agreed period, the agreement
    was renewed for another twenty-four months. By virtue of said contracts, ASPAC sold electronic products,
    exported by ITEC, to their sole customer, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, (PLDT, for
    brevity).
    One year into the second term of the parties' Representative Agreement, ITEC decided to terminate
    the same, because petitioner ASPAC allegedly violated its contractual commitment as stipulated in their
    agreements. ITEC charges the petitioners and another Philippine Corporation, DIGITAL BASE COMMU-
    NICATIONS, INC., the President of which is likewise petitioner Aguirre, of using knowledge and infor-
    mation of ITEC's products specifications to develop their own line of equipment and product support, which
    are similar, if not identical to ITEC's own, and offering them to ITEC's former customer.
    ITEC filed a complaint seeking the Court to enjoin ASPAC to cease and desist from selling or
    attempting to sell to PLDT and to any other party, products which have been copied or manufactured "in
    like manner, similar or identical to the products, wares and equipment of plaintiff and to cease and desist
    from using in its corporate name, letter heads, envelopes, sign boards and business dealings, plaintiff's
    trademark, internationally known as ITEC.
    ASPAC, on one hand, countered that (1) That plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue as it is a foreign
    corporation doing business in the Philippines without the required BOI authority and SEC license, and (2)
    that plaintiff is simply engaged in forum shopping which justifies the application against it of the principle
    of "forum non conveniens”.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the action must be dismissed due to the application of the rule of forum non conveniens
    because the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in the case, ITEC allegedly
    having no personality to sue before Philippine Courts.

    RULING:
    No. Notwithstanding such finding that ITEC is doing business in the country, petitioner is none-
    theless estopped from raising this fact to bar ITEC from instituting this injunction case against it. 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 corpora-
    tion. To put it in another way, a party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having
    acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. And the doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate
    existence applies to a foreign as well as to domestic corporations.
    In the present case, by entering into the "Representative Agreement" with ITEC, petitioner is
    charged with knowledge that ITEC was not licensed to engage in business activities in the country, and is
    thus estopped from raising in defense such incapacity of ITEC, having chosen to ignore or even presump-
    tively take advantage of the same.
    Furthermore, petitioner's insistence on the dismissal of this action due to the application, or non
    application, of the private international law rule of forum non conveniens defies well-settled rules of fair
    play. According to petitioner, the Philippine Court has no venue to apply its discretion whether to give
    cognizance or not to the present action, because it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
    plaintiff in the case, the latter allegedly having no personality to sue before Philippine Courts. This argu-
    ment is misplaced because the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the suit, by virtue
    of his filing the original complaint. And as we have already observed, petitioner is not at liberty to question
    plaintiff's standing to sue, having already acceded to the same by virtue of its entry into the Representative
    Agreement referred to earlier.
    Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the Philippine Court, based on the facts of the case,
    whether to give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on the principle of forum non convenience. Hence, the
    Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely,
    the court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites
    are met: 1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; 2) That the
    Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, 3) That the
    Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.

    You might also like