{"id":138656,"date":"2026-04-08T13:54:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T13:54:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=138656"},"modified":"2026-04-08T14:22:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T14:22:59","slug":"philippines-trademark-disputes","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/philippines-trademark-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Philippines: Trademark Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-138656","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-trademark-disputes","jurisdictions-philippines"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">SyCip Salazar Hernandez &amp; Gatmaitan<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/07\/SyCipLaw-80th-logo_colored_JPG.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">SyCip Salazar Hernandez &amp; Gatmaitan<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/07\/SyCipLaw-80th-logo_colored_JPG.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Trademark Disputes laws and regulations applicable in Philippines<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To represent a client before Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter, do you require a Power of Attorney \u2013 and if so, what are the execution formalities required by your courts?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Where the client is a foreign entity or individual not physically present in the Philippines, a Power of Attorney (POA) is required to authorise the local counsel to act on the client\u2019s behalf before the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). For court actions, a Power of Attorney is not strictly required for a Philippine-qualified lawyer to commence the trademark infringement matter but for a client that is a foreign entity or individual not physically present in the Philippines, a POA would be necessary to comply with formalities including the execution of the \u2018verification\u2019 and \u2018certification against forum shopping\u2019 required under the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (Revised Rules) and the Rules of Court. The verification is a sworn statement attesting that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct of the affiant\u2019s personal knowledge or based on authentic records, while the certification against forum shopping declares that the party has not commenced any other action involving the same issues before any other tribunal. The POA must specifically authorise the attorney-in-fact to execute the verification and certification against forum shopping.<\/p>\n<p>For foreign-executed POAs, the document must be authenticated in accordance with the applicable rules. If the executing country is a party to the Apostille Convention (to which the Philippines acceded effective 14 May 2019), the SPA must bear an apostille issued by the competent authority of the country of execution. If the executing country is not a party to the Apostille Convention, consularisation through the Philippine Embassy or Consulate in the country of execution is required.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement in your jurisdiction to send a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing proceedings for infringement? What are the consequences for a trademark owner who chooses not to send a pre-action letter?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no statutory or procedural requirement under Philippine law to send a cease-and-desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing trademark infringement proceedings. A trademark owner may file a civil action for infringement, or initiate a criminal complaint, without prior demand upon the alleged infringer. However, the absence of a demand letter may affect the court\u2019s award of actual and special damages, such as moral damages or attorney\u2019s fees under the Civil Code of the Philippines (Civil Code).<\/p>\n<p>Section 158 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293, as amended) (IP Code) provides that \u2018[i]n any suit for infringement, the owner of the registered mark shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.\u2019 Thus, a pre-action letter would establish that the trademark owner placed the alleged infringer on notice, and is therefore relevant to the court\u2019s assessment of damages. The provision further provides that knowledge on the part of the infringer is presumed \u2018if the registrant gives notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words \u201cRegistered Mark\u201d or the letter R within a circle or if the defendant had otherwise actual notice of the registration.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, is there a risk that a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats? What steps should a trademark owner take to ensure any cease and desist letter does not expose the trademark owner to any liability.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Philippine law does not currently recognise a specific statutory cause of action for \u2018groundless threats\u2019 of trademark infringement proceedings. However, a trademark owner may not be entirely free from risk. An overly aggressive, misleading, or defamatory cease and desist letter may potentially expose the trademark owner to liability under the following:<\/p>\n<p>a. Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code require every person to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. A cease and desist letter that is intended to harass, intimidate, or is sent in evident bad faith may give rise to a claim for damages under these provisions.<\/p>\n<p>b. If the letter is used as a tool to interfere with the addressee\u2019s business relationships or to spread false information about the addressee\u2019s goods or services, this could potentially be characterised as an act of unfair competition under Section 168 of the IP Code.<\/p>\n<p>c. If the letter contains statements imputing a crime or defamatory imputations and is communicated to third parties, it could give rise to criminal or civil liability for libel under the Revised Penal Code or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No 10175).<\/p>\n<p>To mitigate these risks, a trademark owner should ensure that the cease and desist letter is factually accurate, proportionate, and directed only to the alleged infringer (and not circulated to the infringer\u2019s customers, distributors, or the general public without justification).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings prior to commencing infringement proceedings? If so, what is the minimum expectation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>It is not mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings before commencing infringement proceedings. A trademark owner may file suit directly.<\/p>\n<p>However, once the case is filed, court-annexed mediation is mandatory. Under Administrative Matter (AM) No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA (2012 Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution), all civil cases filed before the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), including intellectual property cases, are required to undergo mediation through the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) before pre-trial.<\/p>\n<p>If mediation before the PMC fails to result in a settlement, the case is referred to judicial dispute resolution (JDR), which is a conciliation process conducted by a JDR judge. Only if both mediation and JDR are unsuccessful will the case proceed to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The minimum expectation is that the parties attend the mediation and JDR sessions in good faith. Failure to appear at a scheduled mediation session without justifiable cause may result in the non-appearing party being declared in default (if the defendant) or the case being dismissed (if the plaintiff), as the court may direct.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are claims for trademark infringements heard before a general commercial Court or a specialist Court focused on Intellectual Property disputes? Are trademark infringement claims decided by a judge or by a jury?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Claims for trademark infringement are heard before designated Special Commercial Courts, which are branches of the RTCs specifically designated to hear, among others, intellectual property cases pursuant to the Revised Rules. These courts have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the IP Code, including trademark infringement actions (Section 163 of the IP Code).<\/p>\n<p>The Philippines does not employ a jury system. All trademark infringement claims are decided by a judge sitting alone. The judge acts as both the trier of fact and the arbiter of law.<\/p>\n<p>Under Section 164 of the IP Code, the clerk of court has specific ministerial duties in relation to civil actions filed in court including having to notify the IPOPHL\u2019s Director of Trademarks about the names and addresses of the litigants and the registration number or numbers involved. In addition, within one month from the entry of judgment or the perfection of an appeal, the clerk of court is likewise required to notify the IPOPHL. The Office, in turn, records such notices in the filewrapper of the relevant registration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a time limit for commencing trademark infringement proceedings once the facts giving rise to the infringement are known to the trademark owner. After how long would such a claim be time-barred? What action would a trade mark owner have to know to give rise to such a claim being time-barred (for example, is it knowing that a mark in question is in use or is it knowing that a trade mark application has been filed and\/or registered?)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The IP Code does not prescribe a specific prescriptive period for civil actions for trademark infringement. Accordingly, the general prescriptive periods under the Civil Code apply, and a civil action for trademark infringement would prescribe within four years from the date the cause of action accrued pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code.<\/p>\n<p>The cause of action accrues from the time the trademark owner knew or should have known of the infringing act. Awareness that a confusingly similar mark is in actual commercial use in the Philippines would typically trigger the running of the prescriptive period.<\/p>\n<p>For criminal actions for trademark infringement, the prescriptive period is governed by Act No 3326 (as amended), which provides for varying periods depending on the penalty imposed. Since trademark infringement under Section 170 of the IP Code carries a penalty of imprisonment of two to five years and a fine, the prescriptive period for the criminal action is generally eight years.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, the equitable defences of laches and estoppel may operate independently of the statutory prescriptive period. A trademark owner who has knowledge of the infringing activity and unreasonably delays in asserting its rights may be barred by laches, even if the statutory prescriptive period has not yet elapsed (See<em> Oropeza v. Allied Banking Corp.<\/em>, G.R. No. 222078, 01 April 2019).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction does the law protect unregistered trademarks of any kind, including by way of passing off, unfair competition or protection of trade dress. What are the criteria for their subsistence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, Philippine law affords a measure of protection to unregistered trademarks.<\/p>\n<p>First, the IP Code protects unregistered marks that qualify as \u2018well-known marks\u2019 under Section 123.1(e). A mark that is considered well-known in the Philippines or internationally may not be registered by another party, and the owner of such a mark may oppose the registration or seek the cancellation of a confusingly similar mark, even without registration in the Philippines. The party opposing the registration must allege and establish that the applicant intends to use the mark on goods or services that are identical or related to those covered by the well-known mark. The criteria for determining whether a mark is well-known include: the extent of knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant sector; the duration, extent, and geographical area of its use; the duration, extent, and geographical area of promotion; and any existing registrations or applications worldwide (Rule 102 of the Rules and Regulations on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names and Marked or Stamped Containers).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the IP Code provides a civil action for unfair competition under Section 168. A person who employs deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he passes off his goods or services as those of another who has established goodwill, or who commits other acts of unfair competition, is liable.<\/p>\n<p>Third, as to trade dress, such may arguably be protected under the unfair competition and false designation provisions of the IP Code, particularly Sections 168 and 169. These provisions cover acts that involve the misappropriation of the distinctive visual appearance of another\u2019s goods or services, including the overall \u201clook and feel\u201d of a product or its packaging that has acquired goodwill, where such imitation amounts to passing off or other deceptive conduct under Section 168. In addition, Section 169 prohibits the use in commerce of any word, term, name, symbol, device, or combination thereof, or any false designation of origin or misleading representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion or deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or origin of goods or services. This provision may arguably extend to trade dress where the imitation of such visual elements misleads consumers as to source or sponsorship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction will the Court hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for passing off,unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising, or does a claimant need to bring such claims in a separate cause of action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Philippine courts will hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for unfair competition (which, as discussed above, encompasses passing off and trade dress infringement) within the same proceeding. A claimant need not bring separate proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Rules of Court, a party may join in one complaint multiple causes of action arising from the same transaction or series of transactions, or which involve common questions of law or fact. Accordingly, a trademark owner may include in a single complaint causes of action for trademark infringement under Section 155 of the IP Code, unfair competition under Section 168, and damages under the Civil Code, provided the claims arise from the same operative facts.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, it is standard for claimants to plead both trademark infringement and unfair competition as alternative or concurrent causes of action in the same complaint. This approach is procedurally efficient, mitigates the risk of inconsistent judgments, and avoids exposure to a forum shopping objection that may arise if separate actions for trademark infringement and unfair competition are filed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, do your Courts share jurisdiction with your Trade Mark Office, such that parties need to seek to seize the forum they prefer first in time, or does the Court take precedence and intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings (for example relating to invalidity or revocation of registered trade mark) which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The courts and the IPOPHL exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain trademark matters.<\/p>\n<p>The BLA of the IPOPHL has original jurisdiction over inter partes proceedings, including oppositions to trademark applications, cancellation of trademark registrations, and disputes relating to the terms of a licence. It also exercises original jurisdiction in administrative complaints for violation of intellectual property rights where the total damages claimed are not less than PhP200,000.00 (See Section 10.2 of the IP Code).<\/p>\n<p>The regular courts (RTCs acting as Special Commercial Courts) have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal actions for violations of the IP Code, including infringement and unfair competition (See Section 170 of the IP Code; See <em>Samson v. Daway<\/em>, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, 21 July 2004).<\/p>\n<p>Where an infringement action is pending before the RTC and a cancellation proceeding involving the same trademark is pending before the BLA, it is possible for the two proceedings to run in parallel. However, if a counterclaim for cancellation or invalidity of the registered trademark is raised in the infringement action before the RTC, the court has jurisdiction to resolve the counterclaim together with the main infringement claim. In such a case, the defendant may elect to litigate the validity issue before the court rather than filing a separate cancellation petition before the BLA.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, a party that wishes to challenge the validity of a trademark may file a cancellation petition before the BLA before or concurrently with the defence of the infringement action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the defendant has a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark being asserted against it (either on the basis of earlier rights or as a result of non-use by the trademark proprietor), does the counterclaim become part of the infringement action, so that both issues are heard by the same Court within a single action, with the Court making a determination at its conclusion, or are the validity issues bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings? If in your jurisdiction validity issues are bifurcated, what are the practical consequences of this from a timing perspective? For example, does this mean that a Court will stay the infringement claim and proceed with the validity attack first to avoid finding a trademark infringed, only to have a separate Court find the trademark invalid at a later date?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Where the defendant raises a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark in an infringement action before the RTC (Special Commercial Court), the counterclaim becomes part of the same proceeding. The court will hear and resolve both the infringement claim and the validity counterclaim in a single action, rendering a unified decision at the conclusion of trial.<\/p>\n<p>Philippine courts do not, as a general rule, bifurcate validity and infringement issues into separate proceedings. That said, it remains open to the defendant to file a separate cancellation petition before the BLA of the IPOPHL instead of (or in addition to) raising the validity issue as a counterclaim before the RTC. If the defendant pursues the cancellation route before the BLA while the infringement case proceeds before the RTC, the two proceedings will run in parallel. The RTC is not bound to stay the infringement action pending resolution of the BLA proceedings. For these reasons, a common approach is for the defendant to raise the validity challenge as a compulsory counterclaim in the infringement action itself, ensuring that both issues are resolved by the same tribunal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does a defendant have a defence of using a mark honestly and concurrently available to them?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The IP Code does not expressly recognise a defence of \u2018honest concurrent use\u2019. However, there are analogous provisions that may afford a defence to a defendant who has used a mark in good faith.<\/p>\n<p>Section 159.1 of the IP Code provides for prior user\u2019s rights. A person who, in good faith, was using a mark in the Philippines before the filing date (or priority date) of another person\u2019s trademark application shall have the right to continue to use the mark in the same business or enterprise in which it was being used, notwithstanding the subsequent registration of the mark by another. This prior use right is limited to the existing business and does not extend to new goods or services.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Section 159.2 provides that the right of prior use may only be transferred or assigned together with the business or enterprise in which the mark is being used.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">When considering the validity of a registered trade mark, does the Court consider whether the trade mark has been registered in bad faith? If so, what actions would indicate this bad faith?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Bad faith in the procurement of a trademark registration is a recognised ground for the cancellation or invalidation of a trademark under Philippine law.<\/p>\n<p>Section 151 of the IP Code provides that a petition for cancellation of a registered trademark may be filed at any time if the registration was obtained fraudulently or in bad faith. The absence of a prescriptive period for bad faith cancellations underscores the seriousness with which Philippine law treats this ground.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court has identified several circumstances that may constitute bad faith in the registration of a trademark:<\/p>\n<p>a. Where the registrant had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence and prior use of an identical or confusingly similar mark by another party, and nevertheless applied for registration of the mark, this may constitute bad faith (See <em>Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc.<\/em>, G.R. No. 159938, 31 March 2006).<\/p>\n<p>b. Where the application was filed with the intention of capitalising on the goodwill and reputation established by the prior user or owner of the mark.<\/p>\n<p>c. Where an agent, representative, or distributor of a foreign trademark owner registers the mark in his own name without the authorisation of the principal, this constitutes bad faith under Section 123.1(g) of the IP Code and Article 6septies of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (\u2018Paris Convention\u2019).<\/p>\n<p>d. Registration despite refusal to licence or ongoing dispute. Where a party registers a mark despite knowledge that the true owner has refused to consent, or during the pendency of a dispute over the mark.<\/p>\n<p>The court will examine the totality of the circumstances, including the timeline of the parties\u2019 respective uses and filings, the nature of the business relationship (if any), and any evidence of intent to deceive the public or defraud the true owner of the mark (See <em>Gloria Maris Shark&#8217;s Fin Restaurant, Inc. v. Lim<\/em>, G.R. Nos. 264919-21, 20 May 2024).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the main objective in commencing infringement proceedings is to secure an injunction, is a claimant required to state how much their claim is worth at the point their claim is issued?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, the claimant is required to specify the amount of damages claimed in the complaint. Under the Rules of Court, the complaint must state the facts constituting the cause of action and the relief sought, including the amount of damages. The amount stated in the complaint is necessary for purposes of determining the jurisdictional amount and the corresponding docket fees that must be paid upon filing (See <em>Monsanto v. Lim<\/em>, G.R. No. 178911, 11 September 2014).<\/p>\n<p>However, the claimant is not required to quantify the claim with mathematical certainty. It is permissible to plead damages generally and to reserve the exact quantification for the evidence to be presented at trial. Notably, if the primary relief sought is an injunction (whether preliminary or permanent) and the claim for monetary damages is merely incidental or nominal, the filing fees will be lower.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to seek a preliminary injunction in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the criteria a trademark owner needs to establish and is there a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the defendant if the Court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, it is possible to seek a preliminary injunction in trademark infringement cases pursuant to Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and under Rule 1, Section 3 of the Revised Rules. The applicant must establish the following:<\/p>\n<p>a. that the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of;<\/p>\n<p>b. that the commission, continuance, or non-performance of the act complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or<\/p>\n<p>c. that a party, court, agency, or person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.<\/p>\n<p>In intellectual property cases, the court shall consider: (a) whether the right of the applicant is clear and unmistakable; (b) whether there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (c) whether there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage; and (d) whether no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury. In this regard, for cases involving identical signs used on identical or related goods or services, likelihood of confusion is presumed, and the owner of a registered mark may invoke an exclusive right granted under the IP Code to assert the existence of a clear and unmistakable right to restrain unauthorised use, including through injunctive relief (See Section 147 of the IP Code).<\/p>\n<p>The applicant is required to post a bond in an amount fixed by the court, executed in favour of the party enjoined, to answer for all damages which the enjoined party may sustain by reason of the injunction if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Conversely, the defendant may file a counter-bond to dissolve the preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is a licensee (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of a registered trademark entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement? Does the trademark proprietor need to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and does it have an effect whether the licensee is registered before the local Trademark Registry?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Section 147 of the IP Code, a licensee of a registered trademark, being the party granted consent by the owner, may institute an infringement action as a real party-in-interest. An exclusive licensee has the right to bring suit for infringement to the same extent as the trademark owner, while a non-exclusive licensee\u2019s standing would arguably be more limited, dependent on the terms of the licence agreement, and may potentially require the owner to be joined as a party to the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The registration of the licence agreement before the IPOPHL is not a prerequisite for the licensee to commence infringement proceedings. However, under Section 150 of the IP Code, a licence that is not recorded before the IPOPHL is not effective against third parties. Accordingly, the failure to register the licence may affect the licensee\u2019s ability to enforce the licence terms against third parties or to claim reliance on the licence in dealings with the public.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant\u2019s mark and the trademark owner\u2019s registered mark, does the proprietor need to demonstrate that confusion has occurred or simply that there is a risk of confusion? What is the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The proprietor does not need to demonstrate that actual confusion has occurred. It is sufficient to establish that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the purchasing public. Under Section 155 of the IP Code, infringement consists of the use, without the consent of the trademark owner, of a sign that is identical with or confusingly similar to a registered mark in the course of trade, in relation to goods or services that are identical or similar to those for which the mark is registered, where such use results in a likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court applies the dominancy test in determining likelihood of confusion. This focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the competing marks. If the dominant features are sufficiently similar to cause confusion, infringement is established, even if there are differences in the marks when considered as a whole (See <em>McDonald\u2019s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.<\/em>, G.R. No. 143993, 18 August 2004).<\/p>\n<p>The minimum threshold of evidence required is preponderance of evidence (<em>i.e.<\/em>, greater weight of evidence) for civil cases before the courts and substantial evidence (<em>i.e.<\/em>, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion) for administrative complaints before the BLA. Evidence of actual confusion, while not required, may be highly persuasive when available.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible to rely on post-sale confusion as a means of securing a finding of trade mark infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no specific statutory provision or leading Supreme Court authority in the Philippines that expressly recognises \u2018post-sale confusion\u2019 as a distinct doctrine in trademark infringement law.<\/p>\n<p>However, the broad language of Section 155 of the IP Code \u2013 which prohibits the use of a sign that is likely to cause confusion \u2013 does not expressly limit the relevant confusion to the point of sale. In practice, courts and the BLA have focused primarily on point-of-sale confusion in assessing likelihood of confusion. Thus, a claimant seeking to rely on post-sale confusion may need to present persuasive evidence, and the prospect of success would depend on the adjudicator\u2019s willingness to adopt a broader interpretation of \u2018likelihood of confusion\u2019 under the IP Code.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction what type of disclosure or discovery is typically ordered by the Court in respect of trademark infringement actions from both parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The available modes of discovery under the Rules of Court include:<\/p>\n<p>a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23). A party may take the deposition of any person, whether or not a party, by oral examination or written interrogatories.<\/p>\n<p>b. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25). A party may serve written interrogatories upon the adverse party, who is required to respond under oath.<\/p>\n<p>c. Request for admission (Rule 26). A party may serve a written request on the adverse party to admit the genuineness of relevant documents or the truth of relevant matters of fact.<\/p>\n<p>d. Production or inspection of documents and things (Rule 27). The court may order any party to produce and permit the inspection, copying, or photographing of designated documents, papers, books, or tangible things in the possession or control of that party.<\/p>\n<p>e. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28). This is generally not relevant to trademark infringement cases.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, the most commonly utilised discovery tools in trademark infringement actions are interrogatories, requests for admission, and motions for the production and inspection of documents. The court may also, under the Revised Rules, issue orders for the inspection of goods or premises where infringing goods are manufactured or stored.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the IP Code provides for search and seizure mechanisms. Under Section 156 of the IP Code and related provisions, the court may issue a search warrant for the seizure of goods, materials, implements, and documents used in the commission of intellectual property offences, including trademark infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What type of expert evidence is permitted by the Court in your jurisdiction? Does the Court accept consumer surveys and are there specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. Do the parties need to request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Expert evidence is admissible under the Rules of Court (Rule 130) and may be presented in trademark infringement proceedings. Expert witnesses may testify on matters requiring specialised knowledge, including the likelihood of confusion, the distinctiveness of a mark, industry practices, and the valuation of damages. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule (AM No 12-8-8-SC), the testimony of an expert witness must be submitted in the form of a judicial affidavit in lieu of direct testimony. The expert\u2019s qualifications, methodology, and conclusions must be set out in the affidavit, and the expert will be subject to cross-examination during trial.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, expert testimony is typically used on issues such as accounting or damage quantification rather than likelihood of confusion, which Philippine courts generally assess on the basis of their own comparison of the marks.<\/p>\n<p>Consumer surveys may be accepted as evidence, although there are no specific statutory rules or practice directions governing the methodology of consumer surveys in the Philippines. The admissibility and weight of survey evidence will be assessed by the court under the general rules on relevance, competence, and reliability of evidence.<\/p>\n<p>A party does not need to request prior permission from the court to adduce survey evidence. However, the opposing party may object to the admissibility of such evidence on the ground of relevance or challenge its probative weight based on reliability or methodology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does evidence submitted by your client in trademark infringement proceedings have to be accompanied with a statement of truth or other similar declaration?  Which party is typically responsible for signing the statement of truth (or similar), the entity itself or the entity's representatives?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), the testimony of witnesses in all civil cases (including trademark infringement cases) before the RTCs must be presented in the form of judicial affidavits. A judicial affidavit is a sworn statement of the witness\u2019s testimony, executed before a notary public, and serves as a substitute for direct examination in court.<\/p>\n<p>The judicial affidavit must contain a statement attesting that the affiant is executing the affidavit to attest to the truth of the facts stated therein, and that the affiant has personal knowledge of such facts or has stated the basis for his knowledge. The affiant\u2019s signature is attested before a notary public.<\/p>\n<p>For corporate or institutional parties, the judicial affidavit is typically signed by a duly authorised officer or representative who has personal knowledge of the relevant facts. It is not uncommon for the signing officer to be the IP manager, brand manager, or a senior executive with direct oversight of the trademark portfolio.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the operative pleadings filed in court must be verified by the party or a duly authorised representative, and may include a certification against forum shopping, as discussed in the response to Question 1 above.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment and\/or strike out of an infringement claim? What are the legal criteria for a Court to grant summary judgment?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, it is possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment in a trademark infringement action under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court. The court shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.<\/p>\n<p>It is also possible for a court to dismiss a claim or defence on the ground of failure to state a cause of action or to strike out a pleading or any part thereof that is sham, frivolous, or irrelevant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it typically take to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from issue of the claim, through to first instance decision? What is the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Trademark infringement cases before the Philippine courts typically take between two and five years from filing to first instance decision. A relatively straightforward case involving clear counterfeiting may be resolved more quickly, particularly where the defendant defaults or where the court grants summary judgment. Complex cases involving contested issues of similarity, validity, and damages can take significantly longer, especially if interlocutory matters (such as preliminary injunction applications or discovery disputes) arise during the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>As regards legal costs, the range varies considerably depending on the complexity of the case, the number of trademarks involved, and the extent of the proceedings. As a general guide, legal costs may range from approximately PHP 3,000,000 to PHP 10,000,000 or more (approximately USD 54,000 to USD 180,000 or more) for a complex infringement action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a first instance decision, is it possible for either party to appeal the decision? What are the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged? Is it necessary to request permission to appeal, or are appeals automatically permissible? If either party file an appeal, is the enforcement of the first instance decision stayed pending the outcome of the appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, either party may appeal a first instance decision of the RTC (Special Commercial Court) to the Court of Appeals. The appeal is a matter of right and does not require leave or permission from the court. The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court within 15 days from receipt of the decision or the denial of a motion for reconsideration.<\/p>\n<p>The grounds for appeal are broadly defined and include errors of fact, errors of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The Court of Appeals has the power to review the entire record and may reverse, modify, or affirm the decision of the trial court.<\/p>\n<p>The filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the enforcement of the first instance decision. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment that has not yet become final and executory may not be executed as a matter of right. However, the prevailing party may move for discretionary execution (also known as execution pending appeal) under Section 2, Rule 39, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. Conversely, the appellant may seek a stay of execution by posting a supersedeas bond.<\/p>\n<p>A further appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from the decision of the Court of Appeals via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, this remedy is discretionary and is limited to questions of law. The Supreme Court may decline to entertain the petition if it raises only factual issues or if the case does not involve any novel or important legal question.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the parties have been involved in a dispute before the local Trademark Office, what relevance does this have on later infringement proceedings? For example where trademark owner (A) may have already sought to oppose the registration of a third party (B\u2019s) mark in proceedings before the local Trade Mark Office, is the trademark owner estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trade mark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A prior decision of the IPOPHL (through the BLA or the Director General) in opposition or cancellation proceedings may have relevance in subsequent infringement proceedings before the courts, but the precise effect depends on the circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>The doctrine of res judicata may apply where the following elements are present: (a) the prior judgment is final; (b) the court or tribunal that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) the judgment was on the merits; and (d) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Where all these elements are satisfied, the prior decision will bar re-litigation of the same issues. However, the strict application of res judicata between IPOPHL proceedings and court proceedings may be contested by arguing that they involve different causes of action.<\/p>\n<p>The related doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (also referred to as collateral estoppel or issue preclusion) may apply. Under this doctrine, issues that were actually and directly litigated and determined in a prior proceeding may not be re-litigated in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, even if the causes of action are different. For example, if the BLA has made a final determination that the marks in question are not confusingly similar, the trademark owner may arguably be precluded from relitigating the same issue of confusing similarity in a subsequent infringement or invalidity action based on the same grounds.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, Philippine courts will consider the findings of the IPOPHL as persuasive, though not necessarily binding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does the Court consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding, or will any damages be assessed after the Court has reached a decision on liability? How are damages for trademark infringement proceedings typically assessed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Philippine courts generally consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding. There is no formal bifurcation of the liability and damages phases in trademark infringement cases. The court will hear all evidence on both issues during the trial and render a single decision addressing both the question of infringement and the assessment of damages. However, there is nothing to prevent the court, in its discretion, from ordering a separate hearing on damages if the complexity of the case warrants it.<\/p>\n<p>Damages for trademark infringement are assessed under Section 156 of the IP Code, which provides that the owner of a registered mark may recover:<\/p>\n<p>a. Actual damages. The claimant may recover the actual damages sustained as a result of the infringement, including lost profits. The claimant bears the burden of proving the amount of actual damages with reasonable certainty. Where the infringement involves the use of a counterfeit mark, the court may award damages of not less than PHP 50,000 (See Revised Rules).<\/p>\n<p>b. Moral damages. Under the Civil Code (Articles 2217-2220), moral damages may be awarded where the infringement was attended by bad faith, fraud, or malice, or where it caused mental anguish, wounded feelings, or similar injury to the trademark owner.<\/p>\n<p>c. Exemplary damages. Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to moral damages as a deterrent, where the infringement was committed in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, or oppressive manner.<\/p>\n<p>d. Attorney\u2019s fees and costs of suit. The court may award reasonable attorney\u2019s fees and the costs of the suit where the infringement was committed in bad faith or where the circumstances justify such an award under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In addition to an injunction and damages, what other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In addition to injunctive relief and damages, the following remedies are available in trademark infringement cases under Philippine law:<\/p>\n<p>a. Under Section 157 of the IP Code, the court may order the seizure and destruction of goods found to be infringing, as well as the materials and implements used in the commission of the infringement.<\/p>\n<p>b. Under Section 156.1 of the IP Code, the trademark owner may elect an account of profits as an alternative to actual damages. Under this remedy, the infringer is required to disgorge the profits attributable to the infringing activity.<\/p>\n<p>c. Trademark infringement is a criminal offence under the IP Code. Under Section 170, the penalty for trademark infringement is imprisonment of two to five years and a fine of PHP 50,000 to PHP 200,000. Criminal prosecution may be pursued independently of, or concurrently with, a civil action.<\/p>\n<p>d. The trademark owner may apply for customs recordation of its trademark with the Bureau of Customs (BOC) under the Customs Modernisation and Tariff Act (Republic Act No 10863) (\u2018CMTA\u2019) and its implementing rules. Upon recordation, the BOC may detain and seize imported goods suspected of infringing the recorded trademark.<\/p>\n<p>e. In addition to preliminary injunctions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective for 20 days (or 72 hours in cases of extreme urgency) to prevent immediate and irreparable harm pending the hearing of the preliminary injunction application.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a decision on the merits, is the winner entitled to recover all or a portion of its legal costs incurred in bringing or defending the proceedings. If legal costs are recoverable, what is the procedure involved and how does the Court assess the level of legal costs which should be reimbursed by the losing party.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The winning party is generally entitled to recover costs of suit from the losing party, as provided under Rule 142 of the Rules of Court. Costs of suit include: (a) filing fees and other lawful fees paid to the court; (b) fees for service of process; (c) costs of stenographic notes of proceedings; and (d) other expenses incidental to the prosecution or defence of the action.<\/p>\n<p>Attorney\u2019s fees, however, are not automatically recoverable. Under Philippine law, attorney\u2019s fees may be awarded by the court only in the circumstances enumerated under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, which include cases where: (a) the defendant\u2019s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate; (b) the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff\u2019s claim; or (c) the court deems it just and equitable that attorney\u2019s fees be recovered.<\/p>\n<p>Where attorney\u2019s fees are awarded, the court determines the reasonable amount based on factors such as: the nature and complexity of the case; the extent and quality of the services rendered; the time and labour involved; the importance of the subject matter; and the professional standing of the counsel (See <em>Aquino v. Casabar, et al., <\/em>G.R. No. 191470, 26 January 2015).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, the amount of attorney\u2019s fees awarded by Philippine courts tends to be considerably lower than the actual legal fees incurred.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Once the Court has issued a judgment, how long typically does the losing party have to comply with the Court\u2019s judgment including any final injunction issued? What are the consequences for failing to comply and how would the winning party seek enforcement of its judgement.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A judgment of the RTC becomes final and executory 15 days from receipt of the decision (or from receipt of the denial of a motion for reconsideration) if no appeal is filed. Upon finality, the winning party may move for the issuance of a writ of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which the court shall grant as a matter of right.<\/p>\n<p>For final injunctions, compliance is required immediately upon service of the judgment or the writ of execution, unless the court specifies a different compliance period. There is no standard grace period; the obligation to comply arises upon notice of the final and executory judgment.<br \/>\nThe consequences for failing to comply with a court judgment or injunction include:<\/p>\n<p>a. Indirect Contempt. A party who willfully disobeys a lawful order or judgment of the court may be held in indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. The penalty for indirect contempt before the RTC is a fine not exceeding PHP 30,000, imprisonment of not more than six months, or both.<\/p>\n<p>b. Execution on properties. The winning party may enforce the monetary component of the judgment through the levy on execution and sale of the losing party\u2019s properties (both real and personal), attachment of bank accounts, and garnishment of receivables. The sheriff is directed to enforce the writ of execution.<\/p>\n<p>c. Receivership. In appropriate cases, the court may appoint a receiver to take possession of the losing party\u2019s properties and ensure compliance with the judgment.<\/p>\n<p>If the losing party\u2019s assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the winning party may initiate supplementary proceedings to discover additional assets. In such proceedings, the court may order the losing party to appear and be examined regarding its properties and sources of income.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">7661<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/138656","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}