G.R. No. 152318 13 of 19 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/152318.htm company organized under private law, it has a legal personality independent of that of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany, in its own official website, [48] also makes reference to GTZ and describes it in this manner: x x x Going by the principle of sustainable development, the German Technical Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH, GTZ) takes on non-profit projects in international technical cooperation. The GTZ is a private company owned by the Federal Republic [49] of Germany. Again, we are uncertain of the corresponding legal implications under German law surrounding a private company owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. Yet taking the description on face value, the apparent equivalent under Philippine law is that of a corporation organized under the Corporation Code but owned by the Philippine government, or a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter. And it bears notice that Section 36 of the Corporate Code states that [e]very corporation incorporated under this Code has the power and capacity x x x to sue and be [50] sued in its corporate name. It is entirely possible that under German law, an entity such as GTZ or particularly GTZ itself has not been vested or has been specifically deprived the power and capacity to sue and/or be sued. Yet in the proceedings below and before this Court, GTZ has failed to establish that under German law, it has not consented to be sued despite it being owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. We adhere to the rule that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, [51] foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines, and following the most intelligent assumption we can gather, GTZ is akin to a governmental owned or controlled corporation without original charter which, by virtue of the Corporation Code, has expressly consented to be sued. At the very least, like the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, this Court has no basis in fact to conclude or presume that GTZ enjoys immunity from suit. This absence of basis in fact leads to another important point, alluded to by the Labor Arbiter in his [52] provided a template on how a foreign entity rulings. Our ruling in Holy See v. Del Rosario desiring to invoke State immunity from suit could duly prove such immunity before our local courts. The principles enunciated in that case were derived from public international law. We stated then: 1/26/2016 4:07 PM