Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996

Petitioner’s claim: 

Complainants thru counsel lodged a formal complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation for violation of PD No. 49, as amended, and sought its assistance in their anti-film piracy drive, against Sunshine seeking the seizure, among others, of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films and other machines and paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, reproduction, sale, lease or disposition of videograms tapes.

Respondents’ claim: 

Private respondents aver that being foreign corporations, petitioners should have such license to be able to maintain an action in Philippines courts. In so challenging petitioners’ personality to sue, private respondents point to the fact that petitioners are the copyright owners or owners of exclusive rights of distribution in the Philippines of copyrighted motion pictures or films, and also to the appointment of Atty. Rico V. Domingo as their attorney-at-fact, as being constitutive of "doing business in the Philippines". As foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines the Corporation Code of the Philippines, denies them the right to maintain a suit in Philippine courts in the absence of a license to do business. Consequently, they have no right to ask for the issuance of a search warrant.

Issues:

1. Whether fact that petitioners are copyright owners or owners of exclusive rights of films is an indication of “doing business” in the Philippines.

2. Whether or not petitioner may sue in Philippine courts absent a license to do business.

Disposition of the case: 

The assailed judgment and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, and necessarily inclusive of the order of the lower court are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 

Dictum:

1. The fact that petitioners are admittedly copyright owners or owners of exclusive distribution rights in the Philippines motion pictures or films does not convert such ownership into an indicium of doing business which would require them to obtain a license before they can sue upon a cause of action in local courts. 

2. Any foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines may maintain an action in our courts upon any cause of action, provided that the subject matter and the defendant are within the jurisdiction of the court. It is not the absence of the prescribed license but "doing business" in the Philippines without such license which debars the foreign corporation from access to our courts.