Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. & Pfizer (Phil.), Inc.

throughout the territory of the Philippines for the term of the patent; and such making, using,
or selling by any person without the authorization of the patentee constitutes infringement of
Facts: the patent."
Pfizer is the registered owner of a patent pertaining to Sulbactam Ampicillin. It is marketed
under the brand name “Unasyn.” Sometime in January and February 2003, Pfizer discovered Clearly, the patentee’s exclusive rights exist only during the term of the patent. Since the
that Pharmawealth submitted bids for the supply of Sulbactam Ampicillin to several hospitals patent was registered on 16 July 1987, it expired, in accordance with the provisions of R.A.
without the Pfizer’s consent. Pfizer then demanded that the hospitals cease and desist from 165, after 17 years, or 16 July 2004. Thus, after 16 July 2004, Pfizer no longer possessed the
accepting such bids. Pfizer also demanded that Pharmawealth immediately withdraw its bids exclusive right to make, use, and sell the products covered by their patent. The CA was wrong
to supply Sulbactam Ampicillin. Pharmawealth and the hospitals ignored the demands. in issuing a temporary restraining order after the cut-off date.

Pfizer then filed a complaint for patent infringement with a prayer for permanent injunction b) According to IP Code, the Director General of the IPO exercises exclusive jurisdiction over
and forfeiture of the infringing products. A preliminary injunction effective for 90 days was decisions of the IPO-BLA. The question in the CA concerns an interlocutory order, and not a
granted by the IPO’s Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO-BLA). Upon expiration, a motion for extension decision. Since the IP Code and the Rules and Regulations are bereft of any remedy regarding
filed by Pfizer was denied. Pfizer filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari in the Court of interlocutory orders of the IPO-BLA, the only remedy available to Pfizer is to apply the Rules
Appeals (CA) assailing the denial. and Regulations suppletorily. Under the Rules, a petition for certiorari to the CA is the proper
remedy. This is consistent with the Rules of Court. Thus, the CA had jurisdiction.
While the case was pending in the CA, Pfizer filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati (RTC)
a complaint for infringement and unfair competition, with a prayer for injunction. The RTC c) Yes. Forum shopping is defined as the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has
issued a temporary restraining order, and then a preliminary injunction. been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another
forum (other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari), or the institution of two
Pharmawealth filed a motion to dismiss the case in the CA, on the ground of forum shopping. (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one
Nevertheless, the CA issued a temporary restraining order. Pharmawealth again filed a motion or the other court would make a favorable disposition.
to dismiss, alleging that the patent, the main basis of the case, had already lapsed, thus
making the case moot, and that the CA had no jurisdiction to review the order of the IPO-BLA The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties that
because this was granted to the Director General. The CA denied all the motions. represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed
Pharmawealth filed a petition for review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; (c) identity of the two preceding particulars,
such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
Issues: successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. This instance meets these
elements.
a) Can an injunctive relief be issued based on an action of patent infringement when the
patent allegedly infringed has already lapsed? The parties are clearly identical. In both the complaints in the BLA-IPO and RTC, the rights
b) What tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Director of Legal Affairs of the allegedly violated and the acts allegedly violative of such rights are identical, regardless of
Intellectual Property Office? whether the patents on which the complaints were based are different. In both cases, the
c) Is there forum shopping when a party files two actions with two seemingly different causes ultimate objective of Pfizer was to ask for damages and to permanently prevent Pharmawealth
of action and yet pray for the same relief? from selling the contested products. Relevantly, the Supreme Court has decided that the filing
of two actions with the same objective, as in this instance, constitutes forum shopping.
Held:
Owing to the substantial identity of parties, reliefs and issues in the IPO and RTC cases, a
a) No. The provision of R.A. 165, from which the Pfizer’s patent was based, clearly states that decision in one case will necessarily amount to res judicata in the other action.
"[the] patentee shall have the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented machine,
article or product, and to use the patented process for the purpose of industry or commerce,
Samar Mining Company vs Francisco Arnado
Facts:
In 1958, Rufino Abuyen won a labor case against Samar Mining Company. Abuyen was
awarded compensation plus hospitalization expenses for a disease he incurred while working
for Samar Mining. The decision was rendered by Pompeyo Tan, a labor lawyer duly appointed
by Francisco Arnado, a regional administrator of the Department of Labor. In 1961, Samar
Mining’s lawyer, Atty. Benedicto Arcinas, filed an action for certiorari before CFI
Cebu contending that Tan has no authority or jurisdiction over said case because he was a
“mere labor lawyer” who had no authority to render the award being complained of. CFI Cebu
dismissed the petition of Arcinas.
Meanwhile, in the same year, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of Caltex v.
Villanueva (L-15658, August 21, 1961) that duly appointed hearing officers by regional
administrators of the labor department may issue awards. Notwithstanding this ruling, Arcinas
still filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal has merit.
HELD: No. It is obvious that the purpose of the filing is just to delay and prolong the litigation
in the hope of “draining the resources of the poorer party” “and of compelling it to submit out
of sheer exhaustion.” The conduct of Atty. Arcinas is hardly compatible with the duty of the
Bar to assist in the Administration of Justice, not to obstruct or defeat the same. The Supreme
Court ordered Samar Mining and Atty. Arcinas to shoulder the litigation costs of this case
jointly and severally
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
FACTS:
Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, 86 year old of age, possessed extensive property valued at
millions of pesos. For many year, he was the Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio
Country Club. He was married with Erlinda Ilusorio, herein petitioner, for 30 years and
begotten 6 children namely Ramon, Lin Illusorio-Bildner (defendant), Maximo, Sylvia, Marietta
and Shereen. They separated from bed and board in 1972. Potenciano lived at Makati every
time he was in Manila and at Illusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio
City. On the other hand, the petitioner lived in Antipolo City.
In 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he stayed with her wife for about 5 months in
Antipolo city. The children, Sylvia and Lin, alleged that during this time their mother overdose
Potenciano which caused the latter’s health to deteriorate. In February 1998, Erlinda filed
with RTC petition for guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to the
latter’s advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment. In May 1998, after
attending a corporate meeting in Baguio, Potenciano did not return to Antipolo instead lived
at Cleveland Condominium in Makati. In March 1999, petitioner filed with CA petition for
habeas corpus to have the custody of his husband alleging that the respondents refused her
demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioned writ of habeas corpus should be issued.
HELD:
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which
the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. To justify the grant
for such petition, the restraint of liberty must an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom
of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective not merely nominal or
moral.
Evidence showed that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of
Potenciano’s liberty that would justify issuance of the writ. The fact that the latter was 86
years of age and under medication does not necessarily render him mentally
incapacitated. He still has the capacity to discern his actions. With his full mental capacity
having the right of choice, he may not be the subject of visitation rights against his free
choice. Otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to privacy.
The case at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the right of a
wife to visit a husband. In any event, that the husband refuses to see his wife for private
reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat or any penalty attached to the exercise of his
right. Coverture, is a matter beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced by compulsion
of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by the sheriffs or by any other process.
ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder, wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned
that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally
infirm. His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the said law that it suffers from the
vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions;
and it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised
Penal Code saying that it violates the fundamental rights of the accused.
The focal point of the case is the alleged “vagueness” of the law in the terms it uses.
Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, the
petitioner uses the facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity of the
law using the facial challenge.
Ruling:
On how the law uses the terms combination and series does not constitute
vagueness. The petitioner’s contention that it would not give a fair warning and sufficient
notice of what the law seeks to penalize cannot be plausibly argued. Void-for-vagueness
doctrine is manifestly misplaced under the petitioner’s reliance since ordinary intelligence can
understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that
specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a saving clause or
construction cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may not invoked in this case since the statute is
clear and free from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of
certainty for the statute to be upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.
On the other hand, overbreadth doctrine decrees that governmental purpose may not
be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms. Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial challenge is allowed to be
made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling effect upon
protected speech. Furthermore, in the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in
the area of free speech. A facial challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult challenge to
mount successfully since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists.
Doctrines mentioned are analytical tools developed for facial challenge of a statute in free
speech cases. With respect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who application
of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that
impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its
application might be unconstitutional. On its face invalidation of statues results in striking
them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court
whose activities are constitutionally protected. It is evident that the purported ambiguity of
the Plunder Law is more imagined than real.
The crime of plunder as a malum in se is deemed to have been resolve in the
Congress’ decision to include it among the heinous crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death. Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional and petition is dismissed for
lacking merit.
Allied bank vs CA
Facts:
Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired by petitioner Allied Banking wherein it is
agreed that the bank reserves the right to transfer or assign respondent to other departments
or branches of the bank as the need arises and in the interest of maintaining smooth and
uninterrupted service to the public.”Private respondent was promoted several times and was
transferred to several branches.
Petitioner listed respondent as second in the order of priority of assistant managers to be
assigned outside of Cebu City having been stationed in Cebu for seven years already. Private
respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred toBacolod. He then filed a complaint
before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.Subsequently, petitioner bank informed
private respondent that he was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch but the respondent
refused.
On 5 October 1994, Galanida received a memo that Allied Bank had terminated his services
effective 1 September 1994. The reasons given for the dismissal were: (1) Galanida’s
continued refusal to be transferred from the Jakosalem, Cebu City branch; and (2) his refusal
to report for work despite the denial of his application for additional vacation leave.
Labor Arbiter- Galanida’s transfer was inconvenient
NLRC- Allied Bank terminated Galanida without just cause.
CA- Affirmed NLRC ruling.
Issue:
Whether or not Galanida’s continued refusal to obey the transfer orders constituted willful
disobedience or insubordination, which is a just cause for termination under the Labor Code.
Held:
The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter,
both misquoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dosch v. NLRC.The phrase refusal to obey a
transfer order cannot be considered insubordination where employee cited reason for said
refusal, such as that of being away from the family” does not appear anywhere in the Dosch
decision. (misleading the court. Gawa gawa)
GR: The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and
according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer does not result in
demotion in rank or diminution of the employee’s salary, benefits and other privileges.[24] In
illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of showing that the transfer is not
unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced employee.Dosch case not
applicable to the present case. The transfer of an employee to an overseas post cannot be
likened to a transfer from one city to another within the country. Willful refusal to be
transferred within the Philippines based on personal grounds was considered willful
disobedience.