Case Digest (G.R. No. 118708)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 118708)
Facts:
Creser Precision Systems, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Floro International Corp., G.R. No. 118708, February 02, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Martinez, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges the Court of Appeals' decision dated November 9, 1994 (C.A.-G.R. SP. No. 34425) which set aside the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint.The parties are Creser Precision Systems, Inc. (petitioner before the Court; plaintiff below) and Floro International Corp. (private respondent; defendant below). Private respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacture and sale of military armaments and was granted Letters Patent No. UM-6938 for an aerial fuze on January 23, 1990; the patent was published in the Bureau of Patents Official Gazette in September–October 1990.
In November 1993 Floro's president learned that petitioner had submitted samples of an aerial fuze to the Armed Forces of the Philippines for testing and intended to bid and manufacture the device. Floro sent a demand letter on December 3, 1993 warning petitioner of possible court action. Petitioner then filed on December 8, 1993 a complaint for injunction and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 88, claiming to be the first and true inventor of the aerial fuze (developed since 1981 and supplied to the AFP since 1986) and alleging that Floro's fuze was identical; petitioner sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.
The RTC issued a TRO on December 10, 1993 and, after hearings and submission of memoranda, Floro filed a memorandum (Dec. 27, 1993) arguing that petitioner had no patent and thus no cause of action for infringement, and that petitioner’s remedy was cancellation of Floro’s patent before the Bureau of Patents. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction on December 29, 1993 (bond PHP 200,000), enjoining Floro from manufacturing, marketing or selling fuzes identical to petitioner’s. Floro's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on May 11, 1994.
Aggrieved, Floro filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (filed June 27, 1994), contending (inter alia) lack of cause of action by petitioner because it held no patent, improper forum for patent questions (should be the Bureau of Patents), and grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing an injunction that purportedly disrupted the status quo and deprived Floro of property rights. On November 9, 1994 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, set aside its orders of December 29, 1993 and May 11, 1994, and dismissed petitioner's complaint. A motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied January 17, 1995.
Petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court notes the Court of Appeals' decision was penned by Justice Gloria C. Paras and concurred in by Justices Montoya and Hofilena.
Issues:
- Does petitioner, who claims to be the first and true inventor but holds no letters patent, have a cause of action to bring a civil action for patent infringement and to seek a preliminary injunction under Section 42 of R.A. 165?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion or exceed its jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction that enjoined the patent holder, thereby warranting the Court of Appeals' reversal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)