Lawyerly

GR No. 163598

2015-08-12

AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC.

JARDELEZA, J.

The elements of res judicata, which must all exist for the principle to apply, are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.[42]

GR No. 186622

2014-01-22

PEBLIA ALFARO v. SPS. EDITHO AND HERA DUMALAGAN

PEREZ, J.

Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit.[15] The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.[16]

GR No. 181962

2012-01-16

CEFERINO S. CABREZA v. AMPARO ROBLES CABREZA

SERENO, J.

A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits "when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections";[13] or when the judgment is rendered "after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point."[14] In American jurisdiction, it is recognized that "(i)nstances in which dismissals are not considered to be on the merits for purposes of the application of the doctrine of res judicata include … dismissal based on court's procedural inability to consider a case."[15]

GR No. 185917

2011-06-01

FREDCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PRESIDENT

CARPIO, J.

Article 6bis of the Paris Convention has been administratively implemented in the Philippines through two directives of the then Ministry (now Department) of Trade, which directives were upheld by this Court in several cases.[25] On 20 November 1980, then Minister of Trade Secretary Luis Villafuerte issued a Memorandum directing the Director of Patents to reject, pursuant to the Paris Convention, all pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world-famous trademarks by applicants other than their original owners.[26] The Memorandum states: Pursuant to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property to which the Philippines is a signatory, you are hereby directed to reject all pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world-famous trademarks by applicants other than its original owners or users.

GR No. 172835

2007-12-13

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Clearly, in accordance with our statutory laws, this Court has declared that intellectual and industrial property rights cases are not simple property cases.[36] Without limiting such industrial property rights to trademarks and trade names, this Court has ruled that all agreements concerning intellectual property are intimately connected with economic development. [37] The protection of industrial property encourages investments in new ideas and inventions and stimulates creative efforts for the satisfaction of human needs. It speeds up transfer of technology and industrialization, and thereby bring about social and economic progress.[38] Verily, the protection of industrial secrets is inextricably linked to the advancement of our economy and fosters healthy competition in trade.

GR No. 171053

2007-10-15

SEHWANI v. IN-N-OUT BURGER

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Contrary to petitioners' argument, respondent has the legal capacity to sue for the protection of its trademarks, albeit it is not doing business in the Philippines. Section 160 in relation to Section 3 of R.A. No. 8293, provides: SECTION 160. Right of Foreign Corporation to Sue in Trademark or Service Mark Enforcement Action. Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the requirements of Section 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for opposition, cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under existing laws. Section 3 thereof provides: SECTION 3. International Conventions and Reciprocity. Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. Respondent anchors its causes of action under Articles 6bis and 8 of The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris Convention, wherein both the United States and the Philippines are signatories.[26] The Articles read: Article 6bis

GR NO. 174153

2006-10-25

RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting intervenors[10] uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors[11] hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group's compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;[12] (4) the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group's compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject.

GR NO. 125684

2006-06-08

ALEJO ARANDA v. FORTUNE SAVINGS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

An order of the court dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata is anadjudication of the case on the merits although no trial has been held. Such an order is thusan absolute bar to the filing of a subsequent action for the same cause between the same parties.[35]

GR No. 120900

2000-07-20

CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. CA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris Convention, of which both the Philippines and Japan, the country of petitioner, are signatories[29], is a multilateral treaty that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names and indications of source or appellations of origin, and at the same time aims to repress unfair competition.[30] We agree with public respondents that the controlling doctrine with respect to the applicability of Article 8 of the Paris Convention is that established in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court.[31] As pointed out by the BPTTT:"Regarding the applicability of Article 8 of the Paris Convention, this Office believes that there is no automatic protection afforded an entity whose tradename is alleged to have been infringed through the use of that name as a trademark by a local entity.

GR No. 134089

2000-07-14

ISABEL A. VDA. DE SALANGA v. ADOLFO P. ALAGAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We note that private respondent did raise the issues constituting its main cause of action in Civil Case No. 4991 before its pleadings with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 28365 as well as with this Court in G.R. No. 117259. However, said issues were not touched upon or considered in either cases where judgment was simply on the merits of the ejectment case brought to them on appeal and no ruling, direct or otherwise, was made on the validity or invalidity of the auction sale on execution of private respondent's properties. Without such a ruling, res judicata, which literally means "a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided, a thing or matter settled by judgment,"[15] can not be successfully pleaded by petitioners.

	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
The elements of res judicata, which must all exist for the principle to apply, are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.[42]
	GR No. 186622 2014-01-22	PEBLIA ALFARO v. SPS. EDITHO AND HERA DUMALAGAN PEREZ, J.
Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit.[15] The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.[16]
	GR No. 181962 2012-01-16	CEFERINO S. CABREZA v. AMPARO ROBLES CABREZA SERENO, J.
A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits "when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections";[13] or when the judgment is rendered "after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point."[14] In American jurisdiction, it is recognized that "(i)nstances in which dismissals are not considered to be on the merits for purposes of the application of the doctrine of res judicata include … dismissal based on court's procedural inability to consider a case."[15]
	GR No. 185917 2011-06-01	FREDCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PRESIDENT CARPIO, J.
Article 6bis of the Paris Convention has been administratively implemented in the Philippines through two directives of the then Ministry (now Department) of Trade, which directives were upheld by this Court in several cases.[25] On 20 November 1980, then Minister of Trade Secretary Luis Villafuerte issued a Memorandum directing the Director of Patents to reject, pursuant to the Paris Convention, all pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world-famous trademarks by applicants other than their original owners.[26] The Memorandum states: Pursuant to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property to which the Philippines is a signatory, you are hereby directed to reject all pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world-famous trademarks by applicants other than its original owners or users.
	GR No. 172835 2007-12-13	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Clearly, in accordance with our statutory laws, this Court has declared that intellectual and industrial property rights cases are not simple property cases.[36] Without limiting such industrial property rights to trademarks and trade names, this Court has ruled that all agreements concerning intellectual property are intimately connected with economic development. [37] The protection of industrial property encourages investments in new ideas and inventions and stimulates creative efforts for the satisfaction of human needs. It speeds up transfer of technology and industrialization, and thereby bring about social and economic progress.[38] Verily, the protection of industrial secrets is inextricably linked to the advancement of our economy and fosters healthy competition in trade.
	GR No. 171053 2007-10-15	SEHWANI v. IN-N-OUT BURGER YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Contrary to petitioners' argument, respondent has the legal capacity to sue for the protection of its trademarks, albeit it is not doing business in the Philippines. Section 160 in relation to Section 3 of R.A. No. 8293, provides: SECTION 160. Right of Foreign Corporation to Sue in Trademark or Service Mark Enforcement Action. Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the requirements of Section 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for opposition, cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under existing laws. Section 3 thereof provides: SECTION 3. International Conventions and Reciprocity. Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. Respondent anchors its causes of action under Articles 6bis and 8 of The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris Convention, wherein both the United States and the Philippines are signatories.[26] The Articles read: Article 6bis
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting intervenors[10] uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors[11] hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group's compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;[12] (4) the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group's compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject.
	GR NO. 125684 2006-06-08	ALEJO ARANDA v. FORTUNE SAVINGS CALLEJO, SR., J.
An order of the court dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata is anadjudication of the case on the merits although no trial has been held. Such an order is thusan absolute bar to the filing of a subsequent action for the same cause between the same parties.[35]
	GR No. 120900 2000-07-20	CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. CA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris Convention, of which both the Philippines and Japan, the country of petitioner, are signatories[29], is a multilateral treaty that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names and indications of source or appellations of origin, and at the same time aims to repress unfair competition.[30] We agree with public respondents that the controlling doctrine with respect to the applicability of Article 8 of the Paris Convention is that established in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court.[31] As pointed out by the BPTTT:"Regarding the applicability of Article 8 of the Paris Convention, this Office believes that there is no automatic protection afforded an entity whose tradename is alleged to have been infringed through the use of that name as a trademark by a local entity.
	GR No. 134089 2000-07-14	ISABEL A. VDA. DE SALANGA v. ADOLFO P. ALAGAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We note that private respondent did raise the issues constituting its main cause of action in Civil Case No. 4991 before its pleadings with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 28365 as well as with this Court in G.R. No. 117259. However, said issues were not touched upon or considered in either cases where judgment was simply on the merits of the ejectment case brought to them on appeal and no ruling, direct or otherwise, was made on the validity or invalidity of the auction sale on execution of private respondent's properties. Without such a ruling, res judicata, which literally means "a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided, a thing or matter settled by judgment,"[15] can not be successfully pleaded by petitioners.

PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI v. CA