Co v. Yeung
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Keng Huan Jerry Yeung and Emma Yeung (Sps. Yeung), who exclusively import and distribute Greenstone Medicated Oil Item No. 16 (Greenstone) in the Philippines, filed a civil complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition against Ling Na Lau, Pinky Lau (the Laus), and Roberto Co (Co). Sps. Yeung alleged that on April 24, 2000, Emma’s brother bought a bottle of Greenstone from Royal Chinese Drug Store (Royal), owned by Ling Na Lau, which he doubted for its authenticity due to a different smell and weaker heat. Upon investigation on May 4, 2000, Yeung found seven bottles of counterfeit Greenstone for sale at Royal. Pinky Lau claimed these items came from Co, who offered them as "Tienchi Fong Sap Oil Greenstone" (Tienchi) on April 28, 2000. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Co and the Laus guilty of unfair competition, ordering them to pay Sps. Yeung temperate damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The RTC found no trademark infringement due to lack of proof of registration of the trademark "Greenstone" at the time of the offense. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision, giving great weight to the trial court's findings on witness credibility and sustaining the award of damages. The Laus and Co moved for reconsideration, which were denied. Co filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Roberto Co assails the CA's affirmation of his liability for unfair competition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Roberto Co's liability for unfair competition. Whether the factual findings of the RTC and CA are binding on the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 16, 2013 and the Resolution dated May 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93679 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Roberto Co's liability for unfair competition: The Supreme Court held that Roberto Co is liable for unfair competition. The Court reiterated the definition of unfair competition as the passing off or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public. This occurs when a defendant gives their goods the general appearance of a competitor's goods with the intention of deceiving the public. The Court found that Co conspired with the Laus in selling counterfeit Greenstone products, which were packaged in bottles identical to the original, thus creating a presumption of fraudulent intent. The Court affirmed the award of temperate damages, recognizing the pecuniary loss suffered by Sps. Yeung due to damage to their goodwill, which cannot be proved with certainty. The awards for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit were also sustained. On the issue of whether the factual findings of the RTC and CA are binding on the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court affirmed that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. The Court found that Co failed to convince it that any of the exceptions to the rule barring questions of fact in petitions for review under Rule 45 exists. Both the RTC and CA fully considered the evidence and adequately explained their legal and evidentiary reasons for concluding that Co committed acts of unfair competition. The Court's review is limited to questions of law, and it does not re-examine evidence unless there is a showing that the trial court's judgment lacked sufficient support or that the appellate court misapprehended the facts.
Main Doctrine
Unfair competition, defined as the passing off or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public, is established when the defendant gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public. Unlike trademark infringement, prior registration of the trademark is not a prerequisite for an unfair competition case.