Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Global vs. Surecomp
Global vs. Surecomp
Global vs. Surecomp
Surecomp
Software
Facts:
Surecomp Software is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the Netherlands.
In 1999, it entered into a software license agreement to let Asian Bank Corp (ABC) use Surecomps
IMEX Software System for 20 years.
Pursuant to the agreement, Surecomp installed the system and ABC also undertook to
pay professional services and annual maintenance fees for 5 years, and committed to purchase
some products at discounted prices. ABC also requested Surecomp to purchase a certain
software with a promise to reimburse. However, Global failed to reimburse despite Surecomps
delivery of the product.
Sometime in 2000, ABC merged with Global Business. When Global took over operations,
it found the IMEX system unworkable and informed Surecomp that it was going to discontinue
with the software agreement and that it was going to stop payments.
Surecomp filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages in RTC-Makati for
Globals failure to pay its obligations in the agreement despite demands.
1. That Surecomp had no capacity to sue because it was doing business in the
Philippines without a license; and
2. That the claim on which the action was founded was unenforceable under the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Being a technology transfer
arrangement, Surecomp failed to comply with Sec 87 & 88 of the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines.
o RTC denied MTD RTC says it sees no reason to belabor the issue on
Surecomps capacity to sue since there is a prima facie showing that Global
entered into a contract with Surecomp and having done so, willingly, it
cannot now be made to raise the issue of capacity to sue (Merrill Lynch
Futures, Inc. v. CA).
Global filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of
preliminary injunction under Rule65 before the CA, saying that the RTC abused its discretion and
acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
Issue/s:
Whether a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy for a denial of a motion
to dismiss.
Held:
No.
The general rule is that the denial of an MTD cannot be questioned in a special civil action
for certiorari.
A special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction
and NOT errors of judgment.
To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the denial of the MTD must
have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
"Grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, Global did not properly substantiate its claim of arbitrariness on the part of
the TC judge denying the MTD. Ina petition for certiorari, absent such showing of
arbitrariness, capriciousness, or ill motive in the disposition of the trial judge in the case,
SC is constrained to uphold the ruling, especially because the decision was upheld by the
CA.