Scribd
Upload
63 views1 page

Tuna vs. Kingford - (Almost) Digest

A foreign corporation (TPI) entered into an agreement with five Philippine tuna processors, including Respondent Kingford. Disputes arose and TPI submitted the matter to arbitration, winning an award against Kingford. TPI filed to enforce the award in Philippine courts. The court initially dismissed due to TPI lacking legal capacity as an unlicensed foreign corporation. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 should apply instead of the Corporation Code as the more specific law. The ADR Act allows unlicensed foreign corporations to seek enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Philippines. Therefore, TPI has legal capacity to enforce the arbitral award against Kingford.

Uploaded by

Anjanette Mangalindan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views1 page

Tuna vs. Kingford - (Almost) Digest

A foreign corporation (TPI) entered into an agreement with five Philippine tuna processors, including Respondent Kingford. Disputes arose and TPI submitted the matter to arbitration, winning an award against Kingford. TPI filed to enforce the award in Philippine courts. The court initially dismissed due to TPI lacking legal capacity as an unlicensed foreign corporation. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 should apply instead of the Corporation Code as the more specific law. The ADR Act allows unlicensed foreign corporations to seek enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Philippines. Therefore, TPI has legal capacity to enforce the arbitral award against Kingford.

Uploaded by

Anjanette Mangalindan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FACTS: IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE

CORPORATION CODE SECTION 133 IS THE


YAMAOKA PATENT ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM GENERAL LAW AND THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
AGREEMENT WITH 5 (FIVE) PHILIPPINE TUNA RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004, THE LATTER SHOLD
PROCESSORS INCLUDING RESPONDENT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE APPLYING
PHILIPPINE KINGFORD . THE AFOREMENTIONED PRINCIPLE.

IN THE PERTINENT PROVISION NO. 4 , IT UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ALTERNATIVE


STATES THAT ESTABLISHMENT OF TUNA DISPTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004, THE
PROCESSORS INC. THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE OPPOSING PARTY IN APPLICATION FOR
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TUNA PROCESSORS, RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENNT OF THE
INC. (TPI), A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED IN ARBITRAL AWARD MAY RAISE ONLY TO THOSE
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN ORDER TO GROUNDS THAT WERE ENUMERATED UNDER
IMPLEMENT THE OBJECTIVES OG THE ARTICLE V OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION.AND
AGREEMENT. NONE OF THE ECLUSIVE GROUND TOUCHED THE
LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.
DUE TO SERIES OF EVENTS NOT MENTIONED IN
THE PETITION, THE LICENSES INCLUDING THE SC ALSO ADDED THAT , UNDER THE
RESPONDENT KINGFORD, WITHDREW FROM SPECOAL RULES OF THE COURT ON ALTERNATIVE
PETITIONER TPI AND CORESPONDINGLY RENEDED DISPUTE RESOLUTION RULE 13.1, PROVIDES
ON THE OBLHGATIONS. PETITONER TPI, THTA : (A)NY PARTY TO A FOREIGN
SUBMITTED THE DISPUTE FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION MAY PEITION THE COURT
BEFORE THE INERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FORIEGN
DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE STATE OF ARBITRAL AWARD. THE CONTENTS OF SUCH
CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES AND WON THE PETITON IS ENUMERATED IN RULE 13 5.32, IN
CASE AGAINST RESPONDENT. WHICH CAPACITY TO SUE IS NOT INCLUDED.
TO ENFORCE THE AWARD, PETITIONER TPI
FILRD A PETITION FOR RECOGNITION AND
INFORCEMENT OF FORIEGN ARBITRAL AWARD TO SUM IT UP, PETITIONER TPI ALTHOUGH NOT
BEFORE THE RTC OF MAKATI CITY. THE RTC LICENSED IN THE PHILIPPINES, MAY SEEK
DISMISSED THE SAID PETITION ON THE GROUND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
THAT PETITIONER LACKED LEGAL CAPACITY TO FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SUE IN THE PHILIPPINES, RELYING TO THE POVISIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
CORPORATION CODE SECTION 133, IN WHICH RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004.
SAYS THAT A FOREIGN CORPORATION
TRANSACTING BUSINESS HERE IN THE
PHILIPPINES WITHOUT LCENSE CANNOT FILE
ANY ACTION IN ANY COURT IN THE
PHILIPPINES. AND TPI, DOING BUSINESS
WITHOUT LICENSE BY COCERNED AGANECY OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES WHEN IT
COLLECTED ROYALTIES FROM FIVE (5)
PHILIPPINE TUNA PROCESSORS, THE RTC
CONCLUDED CANNOT BE PERMITED TO MAINTAIN
AN ACTION FOR IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
CAPACITY TO SUE.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT
LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE
PHILIPPINES HAVE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.

RULLING:
NO. PETITIONER TPI DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
CAPACITY TO SUE UNDER THE CORPORATION
CODE SEC. 133, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF
HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED VS.
RESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCL, THE
SC STATES THAT AS BETWEEN A GENERAL AND
SPECIAL LAW, THE LATTER SHOULD PREVAIL -
THE PRINCIPLE OF GENRALIA SPECIALIBUS NON
DEROGANT.

You might also like