Tuna Processing v. Philippine Kingford (Case Digest)

8/10/2019 Tuna Processing v. Philippine Kingford (Case Digest)

1/3

Tuna Processing v. Philippine KingfordG.R. No. 185582, February 29, 2012

FACTS:

Kanemitsu Yamaoka, co-patentee of a US Patent, Philippine Letters Patent, and an IndonesianPatent, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)with five Philippine tuna processors

including Respondent Philippine Kingford, Inc !KI"#$%R&' (he )%* provides for theenforcing of the a+ovementioned patents, granting licenses under the same, and collectingroalties, and for the esta+lishment of herein Petitioner (una Processors, Inc !(PI'

&ue to a series of events not mentioned in the Petition, the tuna processors, includingRespondent KI"#$%R&, withdrew from Petitioner (PI and correspondingl reneged on theiro+ligations Petitioner (PI su+mitted the dispute for ar+itration +efore the International entrefor &ispute Resolution in the State of alifornia, United States and won the case againstRespondent KI"#$%R&

(o enforce the award, Petitioner (PI filed a Petition for Confirmation, Recognition, andEnforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award +efore the R( of )akati it Respondent KI"#$%R&

filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the R( denied for lack of merit Respondent KI"#$%R& thensought for the inhi+ition of the R( .udge, /udge *lameda, and moved for the reconsideration ofthe order dening the )otion /udge *lameda inhi+ited himself notwithstanding 01t2he unfoundedallegations and unsu+stantiated assertions in the motion3 /udge Rui4, to which the case wasre-raffled, in turn, granted Respondent KI"#$%R&S5s Motion for Reconsiderationanddismissed the Petition on the ground that Petitioner (PI lacked legal capacit to sue in thePhilippines Petitioner (PI is a corporation esta+lished in the State of alifornia and not licensedto do +usiness in the Philippines

6ence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 78

ISSUE:

9hether or not a foreign corporation not licensed to do +usiness in the Philippines, +ut whichcollects roalties from entities in the Philippines, sue here to enforce a foreign ar+itral award:

ARGUMENT:

Petitioner (PI contends that it is entitled to seek for the recognition and enforcement of thesu+.ect foreign ar+itral award in accordance with R* "o ;


2/3

(he Resolution of the R( is R>A>RS>& and S>( *SI&>

RATIO DECIDENDI:

Sec 78 of theAlternative Disute Resolution Act of !""#provides that the opposing part in anapplication for recognition and enforcement of the ar+itral award ma raise onl those grounds

that were enumerated under *rticle A of the $ew %or& Convention, to witB*rticle A

? Recognition and enforcement of the award ma +e refused, at the re@uest of the partagainst whom it is invoked, onl if that part furnishes to the competent authorit where therecognition and enforcement is sought, proof thatB

a (he parties to the agreement referred to in *rticle II were, under the law applica+le tothem, under some incapacit, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which theparties have su+.ected it or, failing an indication thereon, under the law of the countr wherethe award was madeC

+ (he part against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of theappointment of the ar+itrator or of the ar+itration proceedings or was otherwise una+le to

present his caseCc (he award deals with a difference not contemplated + or not falling within the terms

of the su+mission to ar+itration, or it contains decisions on matters +eond the scope of thesu+mission to ar+itration, provided that, if the decisions on matters su+mitted to ar+itration can+e separated from those not so su+mitted, that part of the award which contains decisions onmatters su+mitted to ar+itration ma +e recogni4ed and enforcedC

d (he composition of the ar+itral authorit or the ar+itral procedure was not inaccordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordancewith the law of the countr where the ar+itration took placeC or

e (he award has not et +ecome +inding on the parties, or has +een set aside orsuspended + a competent authorit of the countr in which, or under the law of which, thataward was made


3/3

tri+unal on a preliminar @uestion upholding or declining its .urisdiction3 after ar+itration hasalread commenced should state 01t2he facts showing that the persons named as petitioner orrespondent have legal capacit to sue or +e sued3

Indeed, it is in the +est interest of .ustice that in the enforcement of a foreign ar+itral award,the ourt den availment + the losing part of the rule that +ars foreign corporations not

licensed to do +usiness in the Philippines from maintaining a suit in Philippine courts 9hena part enters into a contract containing a foreign ar+itration clause and, as in this case, infact su+mits itself to ar+itration, it +ecomes +ound + the contract, + the ar+itration and +the result of ar+itration, conceding there+ the capacit of the other part to enter into thecontract, participate in the ar+itration and cause the implementation of the result *lthough noton all fours with the instant case, also worth to consider is the wisdom of then *ssociate/ustice $lerida Ruth P Romero in her &issenting %pinion in Asset Privatiation *rust v+ Court of

Aeals -../0, to witB

DDD *r+itration, as an alternative mode of settlement, is gaining adherents in legal and.udicial circles here and a+road If its tested mechanism can simpl +e ignored + an aggrievedpart, one who, it must +e stressed, voluntaril and activel participated in the ar+itration

proceedings from the ver +eginning, it will destro the ver essence of mutualit inherent inconsensual contracts

learl, on the matter of capacit to sue, a foreign ar+itral award should +e respected not+ecause it is favored over domestic laws and procedures, +ut +ecause Repu+lic *ct "o;

Documents

Tuna Processing v. Philippine Kingford (Case Digest)