Title
Eriks Pte. Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 118843
Decision Date
Feb 6, 1997
A foreign corporation, unlicensed in the Philippines, engaged in 16 transactions over five months, was barred from suing for payment as the Court ruled the dealings constituted "doing business" in the country.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 95026)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
  • Petitioner Eriks Pte. Ltd. is a foreign corporation organized under Singapore law, manufacturing and selling industrial sealing‐pump elements, valves, control equipment, and PVC pipes and fittings. It is not licensed to do business in the Philippines.
  • Respondent Delfin F. Enriquez, Jr. is a Filipino businessman operating as Delrene EB Controls Center and/or EB Karmine Commercial.
  • Sales Transactions
  • Between January 17 and August 16, 1989, petitioner sold goods to respondent under sixteen separate invoices, delivered F.O.B. Singapore, aggregating S$41,927.43, on 90-day credit terms.
  • Deliveries were made via airfreight or self-collect; petitioner repeatedly demanded payment, which respondent did not make.
  • Judicial Proceedings
  • On August 28, 1991, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 91-2373 with RTC Makati, Branch 138, seeking recovery of S$41,939.63 (plus interest and damages). Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of capacity to sue (no business license).
  • On March 8, 1993, the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding petitioner was doing business without a license.
  • On January 25, 1995, the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) affirmed the dismissal, ruling the sales were not isolated transactions and petitioner lacked capacity to sue.
  • Petitioner then filed a petition for review (G.R. No. 118843) before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Capacity to Sue
  • Whether a foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a license is barred from maintaining an action in Philippine courts under Corporation Code Sec. 133.
  • Whether the sequence of sixteen transactions over five months qualifies as “isolated transactions,” thus exempting petitioner from the licensing requirement.

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.