246 Mentholatum Co. v. Mangaliman et.al.

AUTHOR: Mendoza
[G.R. No. DATE]47701, June 27,1941 NOTES:
TOPIC: What constitutes transacting business
PONENTE: J.Laurel
FACTS:
 On October 1, 1985, The Mentholatum Co. instituted an action against Anacleto and Florencio Mangaliman and the
Director of the Bureau of Commerce for infringement of trademark and unfair competition.Mentholatum prayed for
the issuance of an order restraining the Mangalimans from selling their product "Mangaliman", and directing them to
render an accounting of their sales and profits and to pay damages.
 Mentholatum is a Kansas corporation which manufactures "Mentholatum", a medicament. and salve adapted for the
treatment of colds, nasal irritations, chapped skins, insect bites, rectal irritation and other external ailments of the
body. The Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc., is its exclusive distributing agent in the Philippines authorized by it to
look after and protect its interests.
 Mentholatum registered with the Bureau of Commerce and Industry the word, "Mentholatum" as trade mark for its
products.But the Mangaliman brothers prepared a medicament and salve named "Mentholiman" which they sold to
the public packed in a container of the same size, color and shape as "Mentholatum".
 As a consequence of the acts of the Mangaliman brothers, the corporation suffered damages damages from
dimunuition of their sales and the loss of goodwill and reputation of their product in the market.
 The CFI of Manila rendered a judgment in favor of Mentholatum Co.However, the CA reversed the trial court's
decision stating that the activities of Mentholatum were business transactions in the Philippines, and that, by Section
69 of the Corporation law, it may not maintain the present suit. Section 69 of the Corporation Law states that:
"No Foreign corporation or corporation formed, organized, or existing under any laws other
than those of the Philippine Islands or maintain by itself or assignee any suit for the recovery
of any debt, claim, or demand whatever, unless it shall have the license prescribed in the section
immediatetly preceeding."
 Menthlatum contends that it has not sold personally any of its products in the Philippines and that Philippine-
American Drug was merely an importer of its products
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the CA erred in declaring that the transactions of Mentholatum in the Philippines constitute 'transacting
business' in this country.

HELD:
SC affirmed the decision of the CA.

RATIO:
 When the petitioners assailed the decision of the CA as a pure conclusion of law that was predicated upon the
testimony of Roy Springer of the Philippine-American Drug and the pleadings filed by Mentholatum. The
complaint filed stated that Philippine-American Drug is the exclsuive distributing agent in the Philippine islands of
Mentholatum.
 That whatever transactions the Philippine-American Drug had executed in view of the law, the Mentholatum did it
itself.Hence, Mentholatum, being a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without the license
required by the Corporation Law, it may not prosecute this action for violation of trade mark and unfair
competition.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
There is no general rule or governing principle/s that can be laid down as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or
"transacting" business. Indeed, each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. 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 or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to another.

The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance
of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the
purpose and object of its organization.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Dissening (J.Moran)
That Section 69 does not apply to suits for infringement of trade marks and unfair competition, the theory being that "the
right to the use of the corporate and trade name of a foreign corporation is a property right, a right in rem, which it may
assert and protect in any of the courts of the world even in countries where it does not personally transact any business".
And that "trade mark does not acknowledge any territorial boundaries but extends to every mark where the traders' goods
have become known and identified by the use of the mark."