Title
Supreme Court
European Resources and Technologies, Inc. vs. Ingenieurburo Birkhahn + Nolte
Case
G.R. No. 159586
Decision Date
Jul 26, 2004
A Philippine corporation and a German consortium dispute over a waste management project, with the Supreme Court ruling the unlicensed foreign consortium lacked capacity to sue and arbitration was improper due to a necessary party's exclusion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159586)

Contractual Agreements and Assignments

On October 6, 1999, CDC and the German Consortium executed a Contract for Services which stipulated that the German Consortium would manage the waste management center and allowed it to impose a "tipping fee" for waste collected within the CSEZ. Significantly, Article VIII, Section 7 of the Contract mandated the formation of a local corporation by the Consortium as its representative. Subsequently, on April 18, 2000, the Consortium entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. and LBV and Associates, agreeing to form a local corporation to be identified and structured under specified equity shares among themselves.

Termination of Agreements

The relationship between the parties began to deteriorate following the failure to execute the Shareholders' Agreement within the stipulated timeframe of one month post-MOU. On August 1, 2000, the German Consortium ceded rights and obligations under the Contract for Services to ERTI via a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). However, the disagreement culminated in a letter from the Consortium on December 11, 2000, indicating the termination of all agreements, primarily due to non-approval from the CDC regarding the assignment of rights to ERTI.

Legal Proceedings

In response to allegations of misrepresentation by ERTI towards third parties regarding their rights under the waste management contract, the German Consortium filed for an injunction in the Regional Trial Court. ERTI contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction since the German Consortium was composed of foreign entities allegedly doing business in the Philippines without proper licensing. Anticipating the legal contention, ERTI demanded arbitration in accordance with the MOA’s provisions amidst the ongoing court proceedings.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Rulings

On June 28, 2001, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction against ERTI, leading to their filing for a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. This denial prompted a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which ultimately upheld the trial court's ruling. ERTI's arguments included that the respondents lacked the capacity to sue, a concern dismissed by the appellate court.

Jurisdictional Issues and Foreign Corporations

The Supreme Court addressed whether the German Consortium, as unlicensed foreign corporations, had the standing to sue in the Philippines. Citing Section 133 of the Corporation Code, the Court emphasized that without a license to transact business in the Philippines, foreign corporations could not maintain actions in local courts. The participation of the German Consortium in the bidding process was deemed as conducting business, thereby necessitating a license that they did not possess.

Estoppel and Capacity to Sue

While the Court acknowledged some exceptions to the general rule regarding foreign corporations, it found no basis for estoppel in this case. Petitioners did not benefit from any transactions with the German Consortium and were not in breach of obligation

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.