Case Digest: Philip Morris v. Court of Appeals and Fortune Tobacco corporation

G.R. No. 91332 July 16, 1993

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., BENSON & HEDGES (CANADA), INC., AND FABRIQUES OF TABAC REUNIES, S.A.,petitioners 

vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION

Philip Morris v. Court of Appeals and Fortune Tobacco corporation 

[GR 91332. July 16, 1993]

FACTS:

Respondent contends that petitioner was not in danger of sustaining irreparable damage by the usage of the former of the product name “MARK”, same as that of petitioner’s product, since petitioner was not doing business in the Philippines.

RULING:

Court ruled that petitioner, although not doing business in the Philippines, has the legal right to sue for infringement anyone who uses their duly registered mark. Sec 2 of RA 166 provides that foreign corporations and corporations domiciled in a foreign country are not disabled from bringing suit in Philippine courts to protect their rights as holders of trademarks registered in the Philippines. It was further reinforced by the Paris convention which affords foreign signatories to the said treaty the advantages and protections which Philippine law grants to Philippine nationals. There is no legal requirement that the foreign registrant itself manufacture and sell its products here. All the statute requires is the use in trade and commerce in the Philippines. 

The trademark infringement by a local company may, for one thing, affect the volume of importation into the Philippines of cigarettes bearing petitioners' trademarks by independent or third party traders. The Court was led to believe there was a prima facie basis for holding, as the Patent Office had held and as the Court of Appeals did originally hold, that private respondent's "MARK" infringes upon petitioners' registered trademarks in view of the fact that out of all the words in the English language, respondents chose the word "mark" to refer to its cigarettes. 

Read More

Case Digest: Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR

G.R. No 101083

Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR

July 30, 1993

Petitioner minors, represented by their parents, contended that the granting of the TLAs (Timber License Agreement) by respondent DENR was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. RTC dismissed the class suit on the ff grounds: 1)lack of cause of action; 2)the issue involved a  political question and 3)the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioners.

The Court held that petitioners had the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of the suit. The Court recognized the beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, citing provisions in the Constitution of the rights of the people specifically that of Sec 16, Art 2, which is the specific legal right invoked by the petitioners. The Court also stressed the correlative duty of the DENR as the branch of government tasked with the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural resources (E.O. No. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.

As to the issue on political question, the Court held that the case should be afforded judicial review, citing second paragraph of sec1, Article VIII of the Constitution which states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The Court may take cognizance of cases involving issues on ‘grave abuse of discretion’.

The Court also assailed the ruling of the lower court, invoking the non-impariment clause, reasoning , for one, that the respondents did not even raise the said issue. Granting for argment’s sake that respondents did, the TLA is not a contract but is only a license or a privilege which may be subject to withdrawal by proper authority if deemed necessary for the general welfare and betterment of the country.

The Court granted the petition, allowing petitioners to amend complaint against TLA holders.

Read More