Title
Home Insurance Co. vs. Eastern Shipping Lines
Case
G.R. No. L-34382
Decision Date
Jul 20, 1983
A foreign insurer, lacking a license initially, sued carriers for damaged shipments; the Supreme Court ruled its subsequent licensing cured its capacity to sue, enforcing the contracts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26406)

Petitioner

Home Insurance Company, duly organized under foreign law and authorized after January 1967 to do business in the Philippines through its local agent, Victor H. Bello.

Respondents

Case L-34382: Eastern Shipping Lines; Angel Jose Transportation, Inc.
Case L-34383: N. V. Nedlloyd Lijnen (and its local agent Columbian Philippines, Inc.); Guacods, Inc.

Key Dates

• December 22, 1966 – shipment on SS Neder Rijn (L-34383)
• January 13, 1967 – shipment on SS Eastern Jupiter (L-34382)
• February 1, 1968 / January 5, 1968 – dates from which interest is computed
• July 20, 1983 – decision of the Supreme Court

Applicable Constitution

1973 Philippine Constitution (in force at the time of decision).

Applicable Law

• Corporation Law (Act 1459, as amended)—Secs. 68-69: licensing and capacity of foreign corporations to transact business and to sue.
• Insurance Law—regulation of licensing of insurers by the Insurance Commissioner.
• Civil Code (Art. 1409[1])—contracts contrary to law are void.
• Rules of Court (Rule 8, Sec. 4)—requirements for pleading capacity to sue.
• BP Blg. 68 [Corporation Code] Sec. 133—access of unlicensed foreign corporations to courts.

Facts of L-34382

S. Kajita & Co. shipped 2,361 coils of hot-rolled copper wire rods from Osaka to Manila aboard the SS Eastern Jupiter owned by Eastern Shipping Lines. The shipment, covered by Bill of Lading No. O-MA-9, was insured with petitioner for P1,580,105.06. Upon discharge, 53 coils were in bad order; at consignee’s warehouse, 73 were loose or cut and 28 were scrap. Weighing revealed a shortage of 593.15 kg. Petitioner paid P3,260.44 to the consignee, thereby becoming subrogated, and demanded reimbursement from the carriers, which was refused.

Facts of L-34383

Hansa Transport Kontor shipped 30 packages of farm-equipment parts from Bremen to Manila aboard the SS Neder Rijn owned by N. V. Nedlloyd Lijnen and represented locally by Columbian Philippines, Inc. The cargo, insured for P98,567.79, arrived with nine packages in bad order; five of those missing items valued at P2,426.98. Petitioner paid that amount to the consignee, became subrogated, and sought reimbursement from the carriers, who refused.

Procedural History

Petitioner sued in Manila Court of First Instance, Branch XVII, in both cases. Respondents either denied knowledge of petitioner’s capacity to sue or admitted it. The trial court dismissed both complaints for failure to prove capacity to sue, deeming the insurance contracts executed before license issuance void and unenforceable. Petitioner filed consolidated petitions for certiorari.

Issue

Whether insurance contracts executed by a foreign insurer before securing the license required under the Corporation Law are void and, if so, whether subsequent licensing or pleading suffices to confer capacity to sue.

Lower Court Rationale

The trial court held that:

  1. Under Sec. 68, no foreign corporation may transact business without a license; under Sec. 69, it may not maintain any suit unless licensed.
  2. Petitioner’s license, issued July 1, 1967, postdated the February and January 1967 insurance contracts, rendering them void under Civil Code Art. 1409(1).
  3. Subsequent licensing could not validate pre-licensing contracts; public policy demanded strict compliance to protect the public.

Legal Framework and Precedents

• Act 1459 Secs. 68-69 aim to bring foreign corporations under Philippine judicial jurisdiction, not to bar isolated transactions.
• Marshall Wells Co. v. Elser (46 Phil. 70 [1924]) promotes a reasonable construction that prevents commercial embarrassment and fosters trade.
• General Corp. v. Union Insurance Society (87 Phil. 313) affirms that actual business in the Philippines subjects a foreign corporation to local jurisdiction regardless of licensing timing.
• Conflicting foreign authorities distinguish “void” from “voidable” contracts, but Philippine jurisprudence favors enforceability upon compliance or upon prosecutorial licensing.
• BP Blg. 68 Sec. 133 now clarifies that unlicensed foreign corporations may not maintain suit but may be sued on valid causes of action.

Interpretation and Policy Considerations

The primary purpose of the licensing pr

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.