THE CASE OF TUNA PROCESSING, INC. V. PHILIPPINE KINGFORD - 39 PJP 21

Date Published:
  1. RECOMMENDED CITATION: DELA PEÑA, Mark Angelo S. (2024), “The Case of Tuna Processing, Inc. v. Philippine Kingford,” 39 PJP 21, available at <insert link> (last accessed on <date>).
  2. PJP BLOG: Although this content has received a favorable recommendation for citation from the admin team of PJP, it is not yet considered a peer-reviewed journal entry.
  3. CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjurisprudence.

The case of Tuna Processing, Inc. v. Philippine Kingford (2012)[1]

In the case of Tuna Processing, Inc. (TPI) v. Philippine Kingford (PK), TPI obtained a foreign arbitral award against PK from the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in the State of California. To enforce the award, petitioner TPI filed on October 10, 2007 a petition for confirmation, recognition, and enforcement of foreign arbitral award before the RTC of Makati City.

PK contended that TPI was a foreign corporation not licensed to engage in business in the Philippines. As such, it did not have the capacity to sue or maintain a suit in the Philippines in accordance with the then Corporation Code of the Philippines (now RCC). TPI argued, on the other hand, that it was allowed to seek recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under RA No. 9285.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Corporation Code is a general law that should yield to RA No. 9285, a special law on arbitral awards. Clearly, on the matter of capacity to sue, a foreign arbitral award should be respected not because it is favored over domestic laws and procedures, but because Republic Act No. 9285 has certainly “erased any conflict of laws question.”

[1] 683 Phil. 276 [ G.R. No. 185582. February 29, 2012 ] TUNA PROCESSING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE KINGFORD, INC., RESPONDENT.