Intellectual Property; foreign corporation not doing business in thePhilippines can file an administrative complaint for alleged violationof intellectual property rights

Can a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines file an administrative complaint for alleged violation of intellectual property rights?

ANSWER:

YES.  A foreign corporation has the legal capacity to sue for the protection of its trademarks, albeit it is not doing business in the Philippines.  Sec. 160 in relation to Sec. 3 of R.A. 8293, provides:

SEC. 160. “Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the requirements of Sec. 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for opposition, cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under existing laws.”

SEC. 3.  “Any person who is domiciled or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act.” (Sehwani, Incorporated and/or Benita’s Frites, Inc., vs. In-N-Out Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 171053, October 15, 2007 [Ynares-Santiago, J.]).

x x x

Stated differently, in the case of Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, 493 SCRA 333 [2006]), to wit:

“Foreign corporations may not successfully sue on the basis alone of their respective certificates of registration of trademarks, for as a condition to availment of the rights and privileges vis-à-vis their trademarks in this country, they ought to show proof that, on top of Philippine registration, their country grants substantially similar rights and privileges to Filipino citizens pursuant to Section 21-A of R.A. 166 (now Sec. 3, R.A. 8293).

Coroporate Rehabilitation; Requisites for creation of a ManagementCommittee and appointment of a Receiver, Extent of the Powers andFunctions of a Receiver

What are the requisites before a Management Committee can be created and a Receiver are appointed by the Regional Trial Court?

ANSWER:

(a.)         He Must show that the corporate property is in danger of being wasted and destroyed;

(b.)         That the business of the corporation is being diverted from the purpose for which it has been organized;

(c.)         That there is a serious paralyzation of operations all to his detriment.

In the absence of a strong showing of an imminent danger of disposition, loss, wastage, or destruction of assets or other properties of a corporation and paralysis of its business operations, the mere apprehension of future misconduct based upon prior mismanagement will not authorize the appointment of a Management Committee/Receiver. (Sy Chim vs. Siy Hi & Sons, Inc., 480 SCRA 465 [2006]).

 What is the extent of the power and function of a Rehabilitation Receiver?

ANSWER:

            The rehabilitation receiver shall not take over the management and control of the debtor but shall closely oversee and monitor the operations of the debtor during the pendency of the proceedings. x x x

            He shall be considered as an officer of the court.  And shall be primarily tasked to study the best way to rehabilitate the debtor and to ensure that the value of the debtor’s property is reasonably maintained pending the determination of whether or not the debtor should be rehabilitated, as well as implement the rehabilitation plan after its approval. (Section 12, A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation)

Negotiable Instruments; Definition, Purpose & Functions

Negotiable Instrument; definition.

A negotiable instrument is a special contract which on its face is signed by the maker or drawer, making an unqualified promise or order to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to order or bearer, and when it is addressed to a drawee, the latter must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

Or simply stated:  It is a special contract which complies with the requirements laid down under Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

 

Purpose of the enactment of the Negotiable Instruments Law

            The Negotiable Instruments Law was enacted for the purpose of facilitating, not hindering or hampering transactions in commercial paper.  Thus, the said statute should not be tampered with haphazardly or lightly.  Nor should it be brushed aside in order to meet the necessities in a single case. (Osmeña vs. Citibank, March 23, 2004)

 

Functions of a Negotiable Instrument.

1. Substitute for money—merchants often do not want to carry cash for fear of loss or theft
2. Credit device—some forms of negotiable instruments extend credit from one party to another.
3. Recordkeeping device—these records are used for financial statements, tax returns, and the like.