View full case

PHIL PHARMAWEALTH v. PFIZER

FACTS:

This case involves a complaint for patent infringement filed by Pfizer against Phil Pharmawealth. Pfizer alleged that they are the registered owners of a patent for Sulbactam Ampicillin and accused Phil Pharmawealth of submitting bids for the supply of the product without their consent. Initially, the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO) issued a preliminary injunction against Phil Pharmawealth, but the motion for extension of the injunction was denied. Pfizer then sought a certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the denial of the motion. During this time, Pfizer also filed a separate complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City seeking an injunction. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and later issued a preliminary injunction against Phil Pharmawealth. Phil Pharmawealth filed a motion to dismiss the case before the CA on the grounds of being moot and academic and lack of jurisdiction. The CA denied both motions, prompting Phil Pharmawealth to file a petition raising issues related to the expiration of Pfizer's patent, jurisdiction to review BLA-IPO decisions, and possible forum shopping. The Court agreed with Phil Pharmawealth's argument that Pfizer's exclusive right to the patent expired in July 2004 and that they no longer possess the exclusive right to the product. The Court also discussed the requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and the jurisdiction of the IPO and BLA-IPO.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether the Bureau of Legal Affairs - Intellectual Property Office committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to extend the effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction.

  2. Whether the respondents are guilty of forum shopping.

  3. Whether the respondents are guilty of forum shopping.

  4. Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-754 is justified on the ground of litis pendentia.

  5. Whether the principle of litis pendentia applies in the current case.

  6. Whether the dismissal of the case filed before the Court of Makati City, Branch 138, is proper.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether the Bureau of Legal Affairs - Intellectual Property Office committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to extend the effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction.

  2. The respondents are guilty of forum shopping.

  3. The court agrees with the petitioner that the respondents are guilty of forum shopping. The respondents filed separate complaints in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO), seeking similar reliefs and claiming infringement of their respective patents. This amounts to asking different courts and administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. Therefore, the respondents are guilty of forum shopping.

  4. Dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-754 is justified on the ground of litis pendentia. Since there is substantial identity of parties, reliefs, and issues between the cases filed in the RTC and the BLA-IPO, a decision in one case would amount to res judicata in the other action. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions, Civil Case No. 04-754 should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.

  5. Yes, the principle of litis pendentia applies in the current case.

  6. Yes, the dismissal of the case filed before the Court of Makati City, Branch 138, is proper.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Doctrine of primary jurisdiction: In cases involving specialized disputes, the practice is to refer the same to an administrative agency of special competence in observance of this doctrine. This doctrine applies when enforcement of a claim requires the resolution of issues within the special competence of an administrative agency.

  • Judicial power includes the authority of the courts to determine the validity of the acts of the political departments.

  • Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

  • The Court of Appeals, and not the Intellectual Property Office Director General, has jurisdiction to determine whether the Bureau of Legal Affairs - Intellectual Property Office committed grave abuse of discretion.

  • Forum shopping is defined as the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another opinion in another forum, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

  • The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and (c) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

  • Different causes of action do not necessarily preclude a finding of forum shopping if the rights violated and the acts violative of such rights are identical.

  • Filing two apparently different actions with the same objective constitutes forum shopping.

  • Forum shopping occurs when a party asks different courts or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, thereby creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.

  • If forum shopping is not willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice on the grounds of litis pendentia or res judicata.

  • If forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.

  • Litis pendentia refers to a situation where there are two or more pending cases involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The pendency of one case should result in the dismissal of the other case to avoid multiplicity of suits and conflicting decisions.

  • Litis pendentia - The principle of litis pendentia refers to a situation where there are two or more pending cases that involve the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action before different courts. When litis pendentia exists, the subsequent case may be dismissed on the ground that it violates the principle of non-multiplicity of suits and aims to prevent the unnecessary burden on the court system.