Manuel vs.

Cruz Pao
G.R. No. L-46079 April 17, 1989
Topic The facts charged did not constitute an offense
Issue Whether or not the facts charged did not constitute an
offense
Ruling No. From the viewpoint of substantive law, the charge is
even more defective, if not ridiculous. Any one with an
elementary I knowledge of constitutional law and criminal
law would have known that neither the letter nor the news
account was libelous. Article 354 of the Revised Penal code
enumerates the requirement for publicity and the
corresponding exceptions: 1. A private communication
made by any person to another in the performance of any
legal, moral or social duty; and 2. A fair and true report,
made in good faith, without comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.
The letter comes under Item 1 as it was addressed by the
petitioner to the ASAC Chairman to complain against the
conduct of his men when they raided the Chinese tourists'
rooms in the Tokyo Hotel. It was sent by the petitioner
mainly in his capacity as a lawyer in the discharge of his
legal duty to protect his clients. While his principal purpose
was to vindicate his clients' interests against the abuses
committed by the ASAC agents, he could also invoke his
civic duty as a private individual to expose anomalies in the
public service. The complaint was addressed to the official
who had authority over them and could impose the proper
disciplinary sanctions. Significantly, as an index of good
faith, the letter was sent privately directly to the addressee,
without any fanfare or publicity.
As for the news report, comes under Item 2 of the
abovequoted article as it is a true and fair report of a
judicial proceeding, made in good faith and without
comments or remarks. This is also privileged.
By SIAPNO, Lorie Mae P.

Philip S. Yu vs. CA
G.R. No. 86683 January 21,1993
Topic Unfair Competition
Issue Whether or not respondent is liable for unfair competition.
Ruling Yes. To Our mind, the right to perform an exclusive
distributorship agreement and to reap the profits resulting
from such performance are proprietary rights which a party
may protect, which may otherwise not be diminished, nay,
rendered illusory by the expedient act of utilizing or
interposing a person or firm to obtain goods from the
supplier to defeat the very purpose for which the exclusive
distributorship was conceptualized, at the expense of the
sole authorized distributor.
Another circumstance which respondent court overlooked
was petitioner's suggestion, which was not disputed by
herein private respondent in its comment, that the House of
Mayfair in England was duped into believing that the goods
ordered through the FNF Trading were to be shipped to
Nigeria only, but the goods were actually sent to and sold in
the Philippines. A ploy of this character is akin to the
scenario of a third person who induces a party to renege on
or violate his undertaking under a contract, thereby
entitling the other contracting party to relief therefrom. The
breach caused by private respondent was even aggravated
by the consequent diversion of trade from the business of
petitioner to that of private respondent caused by the
latter's species of unfair competition as demonstrated no
less by the sales effected inspite of this Court's restraining
order. This brings Us to the irreparable mischief which
respondent court misappreciated when it refused to grant
the relief simply because of the observation that petitioner
can be fully compensated for the damage. A contrario, the
injury is irreparable where it is continuous and repeated
since from its constant and frequent recurrence, no fair and
reasonable redress can be had therefor by petitioner insofar
as his goodwill and business reputation as sole distributor
are concerned. Withal, to expect petitioner to file a
complaint for every sale effected by private respondent will

certainly court multiplicity of suits.

By SIAPNO, Lorie Mae P.