This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner claimed that respondent, by selling and distributing Castrol products[11] not sourced from petitioner in the Philippines, violated petitioner's exclusive rights under the agreements. Despite a cease and desist letter[12] dated September 14, 1998 sent by petitioner, respondent continued to distribute and sell Castrol products in its duty-free shop. Petitioner, citing Yu v. Court of Appeals[13] as basis for its claim, contended that the unauthorized distribution and sale of Castrol products by respondent "will cause grave and irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation." | |||||
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Yu v. Court of Appeals,[46] this Court ruled that the right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to reap the profits resulting from such performance are proprietary rights which a party may protect. Thus, injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference with contracts by strangers to such contracts where the legal remedy is insufficient and the resulting injury is irreparable. In that case, the former dealer of the same goods purchased the merchandise from the manufacturer in England through a trading firm in West Germany and sold these in the Philippines. We held that the rights granted to the petitioner under the exclusive distributorship agreement may not be diminished nor rendered illusory by the expedient act of utilizing or interposing a person or firm to obtain goods for which the exclusive distributorship was conceptualized, at the expense of the sole authorized distributor.[47] | |||||