Title
Philippine Products Co. vs. Primateria Societe Anonyme Pour Le Commerce Exterieur
Case
G.R. No. L-17160
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1965
Philippine Products Co. sued Primateria Zurich and its agents for unpaid copra shipments. Court ruled agents not personally liable; principal held accountable.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18751)

Context of the Agreement

On October 24, 1951, Primateria Zurich, represented by Alexander G. Baylin, entered into a contractual agreement with the Philippine Products Company to procure copra for its account. This agreement was initially set for a tentative period of one month, later extended to February 24, 1952, and subsequently prolonged into 1953. Throughout this duration, copra shipments were directed to foreign customers as per the instructions of Primateria Zurich, facilitated through its Philippine branch, Primateria (Phil.) Inc.

Amount Due and Trial Outcomes

By May 30, 1955, the outstanding amount owed by Primateria Zurich to the Philippine Products Company totaled PHP 33,009.71, although it had made a partial payment of PHP 2,000. The Manila court established that Primateria Zurish owed PHP 31,009.71 upon trial, subsequently ruling it liable for this amount and for attorney's fees amounting to PHP 2,000, while releasing Primateria (Phil.) Inc., Baylin, and Jose M. Crame from liability.

Appellate Claims

The Philippine Products Company's appeal contested the lower court's ruling that dismissed its claims against the three individuals, arguing that Primateria Zurich constituted a foreign corporation per Sections 68 and 69 of the Corporation Law. These provisions prohibit foreign entities from conducting business in the Philippines without a necessary license and impose penalties for such violations.

Legal Definitions and Entities

Section 68 stipulates the requirement for foreign corporations to secure a business license in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Section 69 discusses liability implications for agents or officers conducting business for unlicensed foreign entities. The key legal questions revolved around whether Primateria Zurich could be classified as a foreign corporation and whether it had engaged in business operations within the jurisdiction that would incur liability for its agents.

Jurisprudential Findings

The lower court found insufficient evidence to classify Primateria Zurich as a foreign corporation within the definitional parameters of the Corporation Law and indicated that a "societe anonyme" is likely not equivalent to a corporation as understood in local law. The court thus concluded that the plaintiff could not pursue a claim against both Primateria Zurich (the principal) and its agents since a valid judgment against the principal already existed, which the plaintiff did not appeal.

Liability of Agents

The court noted that under Article 1897 of the New Civil Code, an agent is not p

...continue reading

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.