Case Digest (G.R. No. 87913)
Facts:
Leonor A. Olalia and her husband Jesus G. Olalia, Petitioners, vs. Lolita O. Hizon, represented by her Atty.-in-Fact, Atty. Abraham P. Gorospe, Respondents, G.R. No. 87913, May 06, 1991, the Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from competing meat-product businesses. On September 19, 1988 private respondent Lolita O. Hizon filed a complaint for unfair competition with damages and a prayer for preliminary injunction against petitioner Leonor A. Olalia (and her husband), alleging that Hizon had used the trade name Pampanga’s Best since 1974 and that petitioners’ use of Pampanga’s Pride for similar products impaired Hizon’s goodwill.
At the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga, Judge Eli G. C. Natividad initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and twice extended it. After hearings, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction by order dated November 28, 1988, enjoining petitioners from using the trade name “PAMPANGA’S PRIDE — TOCINO, LONGANIZA, CHITCHARON AND CORNED BEEF” pending litigation, conditioned on a P50,000 bond filed by plaintiff.
Without first filing a motion for reconsideration in the RTC, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (seeking to set aside the RTC order) on December 6, 1988. The Court of Appeals issued a TRO, then a preliminary injunction, and ultimately denied petitioners’ certiorari petition, holding that the trial court had not committed grave abuse of discretion; the appellate court treated the trial judge’s findings of “confusing similarities” as discretionary judgments based on evidence and therefore not reviewable by certiorari.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari, challenging the Court of Appeals’ ruling on several grounds: absence of elements of trademark infringement and unfair competition, lack of irreparable injury (noting Hizon’s sales had increased), Hizon’s alleged unclean hands, improper balancing of hardships, and that the Court of Appeals erred in insisting petitioners should have filed a motion for reconsideratio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction?
- Did private respondent demonstrate irreparable injury and the other requisites for a preliminary injunction on the evidence presented at the hearings?
- Did petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court bar their resort to cer...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)