Case Digest (G.R. No. 160966)
Facts:
Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pagoda Philippines, Inc. sued respondent Universal Canning, Inc. for Trademark Infringement, False Representation and Unfair Competition with Damages and Injunction in Civil Case No. 02-102988, alleging that respondent’s "Family’s Brand" sardines were confusingly similar to petitioner’s "Family Brand" sardines and that petitioner had superior rights to the mark. Respondent answered with an Answer, a Compulsory Counterclaim, a Motion to Dismiss (asserting lack of authority of the affiant to institute the action, insufficient verification and failure to exhaust administrative remedies) and a Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction; respondent also sought an injunction to prevent petitioner’s use of the "Family" mark.
After hearing, the trial court, presided over by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., issued a temporary restraining order and thereafter, on March 21, 2003, dismissed petitioner’s complaint without prejudice for insufficient verification. Petitioner moved for voluntary inhibition asking Judge Eugenio to desist from hearing, trying and deciding pending incidents to afford an impartial trial; respondent opposed the motion. On May 22, 2003, Judge Eugenio issued an Order voluntarily inhibiting himself from further hearing the case.
Respondent filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) to compel Judge Eugenio to continue hearing the pending incidents; the CA, in a decision dated August 14, 2003 (Fifth Division, penned by Justice Labitoria), granted the writ of mandamus, set aside the Order of Inhibition dated May 22, 2003, and directed the judge to continue hearing the case. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated November 24, 2003.
Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 45 (it also labeled the filing as a petition under Rule 65, but the Court treated it as a Ru...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for mandamus a proper remedy to assail an order of voluntary inhibition by a trial judge?
- Was there a valid and just reason for Judge Eugenio’s voluntary inhibition in ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)