Case Digest (G.R. No. 47701)
Facts:
- Parties Involved: Petitioners are Mentholatum Co., Inc., a Kansas corporation, and its exclusive distributing agent in the Philippines, the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc. Respondents are Anacleto Mangaliman, Florencio Mangaliman, and the Director of the Bureau of Commerce.
- Case Initiation: Filed on October 1, 1935, in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 48855) for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- Allegations: Plaintiffs alleged that the Mangaliman brothers were selling a product named "Mentholiman" in containers similar to those of "Mentholatum," causing loss in sales and damage to Mentholatum's reputation.
- Initial Ruling: On October 29, 1937, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the Mangaliman brothers to stop selling "Mentholiman," account for their profits, and pay damages.
- Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the decision on June 29, 1940, stating Mentholatum Co., Inc. was transacting business in the Philippines without the required license under Section 69 of the Corporation Law, thus barring it from maintaining the suit.
- Petition for Review: Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Business Transactions: The Supreme Court ruled that the transactions of Mentholatum Co., Inc. in the Philippines do constitute "transacting business" under Section 69 of the Corporation Law.
- License Requirement: The Court held that Mentholatum Co., Inc. cannot maintain the suit without the required license....(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Section 69 Interpretation: The Supreme Court based its decision on Section 69 of the Corporation Law, which prohibits foreign corporations from transacting business in the Philippines or maintaining any suit without a proper license.
- Business Conduct: The Court found that Mentholatum Co., Inc., through its exclusive distributing agent, the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., was conducting business in the Philippines. This was evidenced by pleadings and the testimony of Mr. Roy Springer, indicating the ongoing commercial relationship.
- Definition of "Transacting Business": The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, which was evident in this case.
- License Require...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 47701)
Facts:
The case "Mentholatum Co., Inc. v. Mangaliman" involves the petitioners, Mentholatum Co., Inc., a Kansas corporation, and its exclusive distributing agent in the Philippines, the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., against the respondents, Anacleto Mangaliman, Florencio Mangaliman, and the Director of the Bureau of Commerce. The case was initiated on October 1, 1935, in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 48855) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiffs alleged that the Mangaliman brothers were selling a product named "Mentholiman" in containers similar to those of "Mentholatum," causing a loss in sales and damage to the reputation of Mentholatum's products. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on October 29, 1937, ordering the Mangaliman brothers to cease selling "Mentholiman," account for their profits, and pay damages. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision on June 29, 1940, holding that Mentholatum Co., Inc. was transacting business in the Philippines without the required license under Section 69 of the Corporation Law, thus barring it from maintaining the suit. The petitioners then sought a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue:
- Whether the transactions of Mentholatum Co., Inc. in th...