G.R. No. 31851 & 31852, September 6, 1929
H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY vs. AMERICAN TRADING COMPANY; and WM. A. ROGERS, LTD., and AMERICAN TRADING COMPANY vs. H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY

FACTS

Two related cases were consolidated for trial. In the first case ( G.R. No. 31851 ), H.E. Heacock Company sued American Trading Company for trademark infringement and unfair competition, alleging it owned the registered trademark “Rogers” for flatware in the Philippines. It sought an injunction, an accounting of sales, and damages. In the second case ( G.R. No. 31852 ), Wm. A. Rogers, Ltd. and American Trading Company sued H.E. Heacock Company, claiming ownership of the trademark “Wm. A. Rogers” and seeking to enjoin Heacock from interfering with their business. The trial court rendered a joint decision in favor of Heacock, finding infringement and unfair competition. The judgment: (a) ordered the defendants to render an accounting of profits; (b) ordered them to pay Heacock a sum equal to those profits; and (c) perpetually enjoined them from importing and selling flatware bearing the trademark “Rogers” in the Philippines. The defendants filed their bills of exceptions to appeal, but the trial judge refused to certify them, holding the judgment was not final and therefore not appealable under Section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it included an order for an accounting.

ISSUE

Whether the judgment rendered by the trial court, which includes an order for an accounting of profits, is a final judgment appealable under Section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING

Yes, the judgment is final and appealable. The Supreme Court granted the petitions for mandamus and ordered the trial judge to sign and certify the bills of exceptions. The Court held that the primary purpose of the litigation was to determine the true owner of the trademark and the right to its exclusive use in the Philippines. The judgment on the merits resolved these core issues by declaring Heacock the owner and enjoining the defendants. The order for an accounting was merely incidental to and in execution of that final judgment on the merits. Following the trend of its prior rulings, the Court reasoned that allowing an appeal at this stage promotes the administration of justice. If the judgment is affirmed on appeal, the accounting can proceed; if reversed, an unnecessary and potentially injurious accounting is avoided. The appeal is therefore not premature.