Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 151 views

    Case Study G.R. No. 207153

    Uploaded by

    cheska andres
    [ G.R. No. 207153. January 25, 2023 ] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONDENT

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Study G.R. No. 207153

    Uploaded by

    cheska andres
    151 views2 pages
    [ G.R. No. 207153. January 25, 2023 ] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONDENT

    Original Title

    CASE-STUDY-G.R.-NO.-207153

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    [ G.R. No. 207153. January 25, 2023 ] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONDENT

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    151 views2 pages

    Case Study G.R. No. 207153

    Uploaded by

    cheska andres
    [ G.R. No. 207153. January 25, 2023 ] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONDENT

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [ G.R. No. 207153.

    January 25, 2023 ]

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.


    MONSANTO COMPANY, RESPONDENT

    FACTS:

    Monsanto International Sales Company (MISCO), a foreign corporation, sold


    acrylic fibers to Continental Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) through a local
    indentor, Robert Lipton and Co., Inc. The transactions involved CMC specifying
    its needs to Lipton, who then communicated with MISCO to provide pricing
    and terms. The purchase was documented through indent orders, and
    payment was made via drafts against acceptance.

    CMC failed to settle its obligations, leading MISCO to file a complaint for the
    unpaid balance. CMC argued that MISCO, a foreign corporation, lacked the
    capacity to sue in the Philippines as it was "doing business" without the
    necessary license. CMC also claimed a revised draft agreement had changed
    the payment terms.

    As a result, MISCO filed a complaint in 1986, seeking payment from CMC.


    MISCO claimed that CMC had purchased acrylic fibers totaling
    US$1,417,980.89, with the purchase documented by five drafts that both CMC
    and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) had co-accepted. MISCO aimed
    to recover an outstanding balance of US$938,267.58, which remained unpaid
    despite the draft agreements. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
    argued that the complaint did not concern it, denying involvement in the
    transactions and also raising MISCO's lack of capacity to sue. After an
    amendment to the complaint, MISCO was substituted with Monsanto, the
    mother company of MISCO and the assignee of its rights.

    The RTC found that in selling acrylic fiber to CMC from 1978 to 1983, MISCO
    was transacting business in the Philippines without a license. As such, MISCO,
    or its assign, Monsanto, had no capacity to sue pursuant to Section 133 of the
    Corporation Code.

    The Court likewise rejects the contention Monsanto is not a real party in-
    interest. We take notice that DBP did not question the substitution of the
    party-plaintiff before the RTC. In any event, the Court is convinced that.
    Monsanto, as the sole stockholder of record and mother company of MISCO, is
    a real party in interest pursuant to the board resolution providing for the
    declaration of dividends on all income of MISCO to its stockholders of record.
    In any event, even if there is non-joinder and misjoinder of parties or that the
    suit is not brought in the name of the real party in interest, the same would
    not result in outright dismissal of the complaint.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Monsanto International Sales Company (MISCO), a foreign


    corporation, has the capacity to sue in the Philippines.

    RULINGS:

    You might also like