AVON INSURANCE PLC, BRITISH RESERVE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v.

CA
August 29, 1997 | Torres, Jr., J. | AKGL | Doctrine of “Doing Business”
CASE SUMMARY: Yupangco Cotton filed a complaint against the reinsurance companies. However, the companies filed
a motion questioning the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. The reinsurance companies claimed
that they are not doing business in the Philippines.
DOCTRINE: The true test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of
the business or enterprise for which it was organized. The term ordinarily implies a continuity of commercial dealings and
arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of the functions
normally incident to and in progressive prosecution of the purpose and object of its organization.
FACTS:
 Yupangco Cotton Mills engaged to secure with Worldwide Security and Insurance Co., Inc., several of its
properties.
 Both contracts were covered by reinsurance treaties between Worldwide Surety and Insurance and several
foreign reinsurance companies. The reinsurance arrangements had been made through international broker C.J.
Boatwright and Co., Ltd.
 The properties therein insured were razed by fire, thereby giving rise to the obligation of the insurer to indemnify
the Yupangco Cotton Mills. Partial payments were made by Worldwide Surety and Insurance.
 Worldwide Surety and Insurance, in a Deed of Assignment, acknowledged a remaining balance of P19M still due
and assigned to the latter all reinsurance proceeds still collectible from all the foreign reinsurance companies.
 Service of summons upon the reinsurance companies was made by notification to the Insurance Commissioner.
 Yupangco Cotton Mills filed a complaint against several foreign reinsurance companies to collect their alleged
percentage liability under contract treaties between the foreign insurance companies and the international
insurance broker C.J. Boatright.
 Inasmuch as the reinsurance companies are not engaged in business in the Philippines with no offices, places of
business or agents in the Philippines, the reinsurance treaties having been entered abroad, service of summons
upon motion of respondent Yupangco, was made upon the reinsurance companies through the Office of the
Insurance Commissioner. The reinsurance companies, by counsel on special appearance, seasonably filed
motions to dismiss disputing the jurisdiction.
 In a Petition for Certiorari before CA, the reinsurance companies submitted that respondent Court has no
jurisdiction over them, being all foreign corporations not doing business in the Philippines with no office,
place of business or agents in the Philippines.
[CA] Found the petition devoid of merit

Arguments before SC
[Reinsurance companies] The trial court’s jurisdiction does not extend to them, since they are foreign reinsurance
companies that are not doing business in the Philippines.
[Yupangco] The reinsurance companies are within our courts’ cognitive powers, having submitted voluntarily to their
jurisdiction by filing motions to dismiss Yupangco Cotton’s suit below.

ISSUE: W/N the reinsurance companies were determined to be “doing business in the Philippines” or not? NOT!!!

RULING:
1. The true test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance
of the business or enterprise for which it was organized.
 There is no exact rule or governing principle as to what constitutes doing or engaging in or transacting business.
Indeed, such case must be judged in the light of its peculiar circumstances, upon its peculiar facts and upon the
language of the statute applicable. The true test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is
continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized. (Communication
Materials and Design, Inc. et al. vs. CA)
 The term ordinarily implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that
extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of the functions normally incident to and in
progressive prosecution of the purpose and object of its organization.
 A single act or transaction made in the Philippines, however, could qualify a foreign corporation to be doing
business in the Philippines, if such singular act is not merely incidental or casual. (Far East International Import
and Export Corporation vs. Nankai Kogyo Co.)
 Yupangco Cotton has made no allegation or demonstration of the existence of the reinsurance companies’
domestic agent, but avers simply that they are doing business not only abroad but in the Philippines as well.
o It does not appear at all that the reinsurance companies had performed any act which would give the
general public the impression that it had been engaging, or intends to engage in its ordinary and usual
business undertakings in the country.

1
 AVON INSURANCE PLC, BRITISH RESERVE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. CA
 The reinsurance treaties between the reinsurance companies and Worldwide Surety and Insurance were made
through an international insurance broker, and not through any entity or means remotely connected with the
Philippines.

As applied
 A reinsurance company is not doing business in a certain state merely because the property or lives which are
insured by the original insurer company are located in that state. The reason for this is that a contract of
reinsurance is generally a separate and distinct arrangement from the original contract of insurance,13whose
contracted risk is insured in the reinsurance agreement.

2. A foreign corporation, is one which owes its existence to the laws of another state, and generally, has no legal
existence within the state in which it is foreign.
 Corporations have no legal status beyond the bounds of the sovereignty by which they are created (Marshall
Wells Co. vs. Elser). Foreign corporations are, by reason of state comity, allowed to transact business in other
states and to sue in the courts of such fora.
 Before a foreign corporation can transact business in the country, it must first obtain a license to transact
business here proper authorizations under existing law. If a foreign corporation engages in business activities
without the necessary requirements, it opens itself to court actions against it, but it shall not be allowed to
maintain or intervene in an action, suit or proceeding.
 The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in the country be licensed to do so, is
to subject the foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines to the jurisdiction of the courts,
otherwise, a foreign corporation illegally doing business here because of its refusal or neglect to obtain the
required license and authority to do business may successfully though unfairly plead such neglect or illegal act so
as to avoid service and thereby impugn the jurisdiction of the local courts.
o The same danger does not exist among foreign corporations that are indubitably not doing business in
the Philippines. Indeed, if a foreign corporation does not do business here, there would be no reason for it
to be subject to the State’s regulation.

As applied
 There is no showing that the reinsurance companies had performed any act in the country that would place it
within the sphere of the court’s jurisdiction. A general allegation standing alone, that a party is doing business in
the Philippines does not make it so. A conclusion of fact or law cannot be derived from the unsubstantiated
assertions of parties. Otherwise, the Court would be guilty of sorcery

3. The service of summons upon the defendant becomes an important element in the operation of a court’s
jurisdiction upon a party to a suit, as service of summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court
acquires jurisdiction over his person.
 Without service of summons, or when summons are improperly made, both the trial and the judgment, being in
violation of due process, are null and void, unless defendant waives the service of summons by voluntarily
appearing and answering the suit.
 The defendant in an action can, by special appearance object to the court’s assumption on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. If he so wishes to assert this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion for the purpose of
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted himself to that
jurisdiction.
 In the case of foreign corporations, it has been held that they may seek relief against the wrongful assumption of
jurisdiction by local courts.
 if the appearance of a party in a suit is precisely to question the jurisdiction of the said tribunal over the person of
the defendant, then this appearance is not equivalent to service of summons, nor does it constitute an
acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction.

As applied
 The reinsurance companies from the time they filed their motions to dismiss, their submissions have been
consistently and unfailingly to object to the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction, anchored on the fact that they
are all foreign corporations not doing business in the Philippines.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted, judgment set aside.