View full case

MANUEL C. ESPIRITU v. PETRON CORPORATION

FACTS:

Respondent Petron Corporation (Petron) was the exclusive distributor of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tanks carrying its trademark "Gasul" in Sorsogon, while Bicol Gas Refilling Plant Corporation (Bicol Gas) sold LPG tanks with the trademark "Bicol Savers Gas." In April 2001, Petron and Bicol Gas agreed to swap "captured cylinders" owned by each distributor. During the implementation of this arrangement, Petron's distributor, Kristina Patricia Enterprises (KPE), noticed that Bicol Gas still had Gasul tanks in its possession. KPE's offer to swap for these tanks was declined by Bicol Gas. Later on, KPE's volume of sales significantly dropped, and KPE's manager observed that Bicol Gas' trucks still carried Gasul tanks.

On August 4, 2001, KPE's manager saw a Bicol Gas truck carrying Bicol Savers LPG tanks, as well as one unsealed 50-kg Gasul tank and one 50-kg Shellane tank. He asked the driver and Bicol Gas sales representative about the Gasul tank, and they admitted that it belonged to a customer who had it filled up by Bicol Gas. KPE filed a complaint against several Bicol Gas employees, including petitioner Audie Llona, for violations of R.A. 623 (illegally filling up registered cylinder tanks), trademark infringement, and unfair competition.

Initially, only four Bicol Gas employees were found to have probable cause for the violation of R.A. 623, while the charge against the other petitioners, who were the stockholders and directors of Bicol Gas, were dismissed. Petron and KPE filed a petition for review, seeking the filing of additional charges of unfair competition against the employees. The Office of the Regional State Prosecutor ordered the additional charges but denied the petitioners' appeal and motion for reconsideration. Petron and KPE filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the certification of non-forum shopping complied with the rules. The Court of Appeals also reversed the Secretary of Justice's ruling and ordered the filing of additional charges of trademark infringement against the Bicol Gas employees and stockholders. The motion for reconsideration of the employees and stockholders was denied, leading to the present petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the petition is inadequate for not being signed by all petitioners.

  2. Whether there is probable cause to hold petitioners liable for the crimes of illegal filling of LPG tanks, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.

  3. Whether Bicol Gas has given its LPG tanks the general appearance of the tanks of Petron's Gasul.

  4. Whether the stockholders and members of the board of directors of Bicol Gas should be held liable for the unlawful filling up of Petron's tanks.

  5. Whether or not Hermilyn A. Mirabuna, Kim Roland A. Mirabuna, Kaye Ann A. Mirabuna, Ken Ryan A. Mirabuna, Juanito P. De Castro, Geronima A. Almonite and Manuel C. Dee should be excluded from the charge.

RULING:

  1. The certificate of non-forum shopping is deemed sufficient even if it is signed by only one petitioner as long as the petitioners share a common cause of action or interest in the subject matter. In this case, KPE and Petron shared a common cause of action against the petitioners in relation to the violation of their proprietary rights. Therefore, the certificate signed by one petitioner, on behalf of the other petitioners, was deemed substantial compliance with the requirement.

  2. The complaint filed during the preliminary investigation shows that the petitioners illegally filled a Petron Gasul LPG tank without the manufacturer's written consent, in violation of R.A. 623. However, there is no evidence to show that Bicol Gas painted on its own tanks Petron's Gasul trademark or a confusingly similar version to deceive customers. Also, there is no proof that Bicol Gas distributed imitation Petron Gasul LPGs. Therefore, there is no probable cause to hold petitioners liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

  3. The Court finds that there is no showing that Bicol Gas has been giving its LPG tanks the general appearance of the tanks of Petron's Gasul. There was only one Petron Gasul tank found in a truck filled with Bicol Gas tanks, which appears to be a mix-up.

  4. Individual liability of corporate officers or employees may be imposed if the crime is committed through their act, default, or omission. However, in order to hold stockholders liable for acts committed by the corporation, it must be shown that they had knowledge of the criminal act and that they took part in it or gave their consent. The Court finds that there is no evidence establishing the involvement of the stockholders in running the operations of Bicol Gas. Therefore, the stockholders should not be held liable.

  5. The Supreme Court ordered the exclusion of Hermilyn A. Mirabuna, Kim Roland A. Mirabuna, Kaye Ann A. Mirabuna, Ken Ryan A. Mirabuna, Juanito P. De Castro, Geronima A. Almonite, and Manuel C. Dee from the charge.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Procedural requirements, such as the submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping, may be deemed substantially complied with under justifiable circumstances, such as when petitioners file a collective action with a common cause of action or interest.

  • To establish trademark infringement, it must be proven that the alleged infringer used the registered mark or a confusingly similar mark with intent to deceive the public and defraud its competitor.

  • Unfair competition includes selling goods that give the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either in the goods themselves or their packaging or appearance.

  • The act punished under the law is giving one's goods the general appearance of the goods of another, likely to mislead buyers into believing that the goods belong to the other.

  • Corporate officers or employees may be individually held liable for a crime committed by the corporation.

  • Stockholders of a corporation are separate from its directors and officers.

  • Before a stockholder may be held liable for acts committed by the corporation, it must be shown that they had knowledge of the criminal act and that they took part in it or gave their consent.

  • The court has the authority to exclude certain individuals from the charge. (Not elaborated in the excerpt)