GR 119280; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119280 August 10, 2006
UNILEVER PHILIPPINES (PRC), INC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. (P&GP) filed a complaint for injunction against Unilever Philippines, alleging that Unilever’s television commercial for its “Breeze Powerwhite” laundry product, aired starting July 1993, substantially imitated P&GP’s distinctive “double tug” or “tac-tac” key visual. This visual, showing fabric being stretched sideways, was allegedly conceptualized for P&G in Italy in 1982 and had been used in various international and local advertisements, including a 1994 Philippine airing of a dubbed Italian commercial for “Ace” bleach. P&GP sought a preliminary injunction to stop Unilever from airing the allegedly infringing commercials. The trial court granted the writ after hearings where both parties submitted pleadings. Unilever appealed, arguing the writ was issued without evidence of P&GP’s clear legal right and that it effectively disposed of the main case without trial.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Unilever.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the substantive requirement for a preliminary injunction, the Court clarified that copyright protection under PD 49 (the Intellectual Property Decree) subsists from the moment of creation of the work, not from its registration. P&GP’s claim of a proprietary key visual, which Unilever did not deny was substantially similar, constituted prima facie evidence of a right deserving of provisional protection. Unilever’s possession of copyright certificates for its own advertisements did not automatically negate P&GP’s claim of prior creation and infringement.
Second, on procedural grounds, the Court held that the issuance did not constitute a prejudgment of the main case nor a denial of due process. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy aimed solely at preserving the status quo pending a full trial on the merits; it is based on initial, incomplete evidence and does not constitute an adjudication of the parties’ ultimate rights. The trial court conducted hearings, allowed Unilever to file an answer, an opposition, and a rejoinder, and required P&GP to post a bond. This process satisfied the requirement for a hearing on the application for injunction. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as Unilever was given ample opportunity to present its defenses, and the main case remained unresolved for trial. The appellate court correctly found no jurisdictional error.