Case Digest (G.R. No. 73765)
Facts:
Hang Lung Bank, Ltd. v. Hon. Felintriye G. Saulog and Cordova Chin San, G.R. No. 73765, August 26, 1991, the Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Hang Lung Bank, Ltd. (a Hong Kong bank not doing business in the Philippines) entered into two continuing guarantees on July 18, 1979 and July 25, 1980 with Cordova Chin San in Hong Kong, under which Chin San guaranteed sums owed by Worlder Enterprises up to HK$250,000. When Worlder Enterprises defaulted, petitioner sued Worlder Enterprises and Chin San in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong; judgment was rendered on June 14, 1984 against both, awarding petitioner HK$1,117,968.36 against Worlder Enterprises and HK$279,325.00 against Chin San (including interest and costs).
After unsuccessful demand efforts at Chin San’s Philippine address, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 8762 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXLII, Makati on October 18, 1984 to collect the sum adjudged by the Hong Kong court. Chin San answered, pleading lack of cause of action, incapacity to sue, and improper venue. Pre-trial was set but a motion to dismiss was filed by Chin San on grounds that petitioner lacked legal capacity because, as a foreign bank not licensed to do business in the Philippines, it could not maintain a suit per Section 14 of the General Banking Act.
On December 20, 1985 the trial court (Presiding Judge Felintriye G. Saulog) granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Section 14 barred a foreign bank not doing business in the Philippines from maintaining suit until licensed; the court characterized the guarantees as transactions in Hong Kong and found the complaint improper, and it dismissed the case. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Cordova Chin San waive his objection of improper venue by filing an answer in the RTC?
- Could petitioner, a foreign bank not doing business in the Philippines and without a license under Section 14 of the General Banking Act, maintain the action in Philippine courts?
- Should the RTC treat petitioner’s complaint as an enforcement of the Hong Kong judgment or as a petition for recognition under Section 50(b), Rule 39 of the Rules ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)