Title
Cargill, Inc. vs. Intra Strata Assurance Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 168266
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2010
Cargill, a foreign corporation, sued Intra Strata for breach of contract over molasses delivery. SC ruled Cargill’s transaction was isolated, not "doing business," reinstating trial court’s decision in Cargill’s favor.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 168266)

Facts:

  • Parties and Contract
    • Petitioner Cargill, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
    • Respondent Intra Strata Assurance Corporation issued performance and surety bonds for Northern Mindanao Corporation (NMC).
  • Original Agreement (16 August 1989)
    • NMC to sell 20,000–24,000 MT of molasses (1 Jan–30 Jun 1990) at US$44/MT.
    • “Red clause” Letter of Credit allowed NMC to draw up to US$500,000 against presentation of certain documents.
  • Contract Amendments
    • 11 January 1990: price increased to US$47.50/MT.
    • 18 June 1990: quantity reduced to 10,500 MT; price raised to US$55/MT.
    • 22 August 1990: shipments split into two tranches of 5,250 MT each; NMC to post a performance bond of US$451,500 (10,500 MT × US$43).
  • Bond Issuance and Breach
    • 10 October 1990: respondent issued a P11,287,500 performance bond and a P9,978,125 surety bond.
    • NMC delivered only 219.551 MT; petitioner demanded bond payment, respondent refused.
  • Procedural History
    • 12 April 1991: petitioner sued NMC and respondent for sums due.
    • 13 December 1991: trial court approved compromise—P3,000,000 payment and delivery of 6,991 MT by NMC.
    • NMC defaulted; trial proceeded against respondent.
    • 23 November 1994: trial court ordered respondent to pay P16,993,200 plus interests, attorney’s fees and costs; counterclaim dismissed.
    • 26 May 2005: Court of Appeals reversed, holding Cargill lacked capacity as an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.
    • Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner is “doing business” in the Philippines and thus lacks capacity to sue.
  • Whether respondent is estopped from raising the capacity defense.
  • Whether the Supreme Court may review the Court of Appeals’ factual findings.
  • Whether the US$500,000 advance was released to NMC without compliance with the red-clause Letter of Credit.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.