This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-11-28 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, even if we were to assume that the issue of protection of intellectual property is paramount in this case, the criminal complaint for unfair competition against respondents cannot prosper, for the elements of the crime were not present. We have enunciated in CCBPI v. Gomez[67] that the key elements of unfair competition are "deception, passing off and fraud upon the public."[68] No deception can be imagined to have been foisted on the public through different vendor codes, which are used by SM only for the identification of suppliers' products. | |||||
|
2012-07-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is associated.[37] This is because a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases, and its meaning may, thus, be modified or restricted by the latter.[38] The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.[39] In short, every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter. | |||||
|
2010-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence also formulated the following "true test" of unfair competition: whether the acts of the defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making his purchases under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the controversy relates. One of the essential requisites in an action to restrain unfair competition is proof of fraud; the intent to deceive, actual or probable must be shown before the right to recover can exist.[49] | |||||
|
2010-02-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. Probable cause requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched.[20] In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,[21] this Court stressed that: The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. | |||||