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 consolidated cases involve a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition. H.E. Heacock Company (Heacock) sued American Trading Company (ATC) for using the trademark “Rogers” on flatware, alleging infringement of its registered trademark “Rogers” under Act No. 666. Concurrently, Wm. A. Rogers, Ltd. (the alleged U.S. manufacturer) and ATC sued Heacock to prevent interference with their business, claiming rightful use of the trademark “Wm. A. Rogers,” which was registered in the U.S. The cases were jointly tried. The trial court ruled in favor of Heacock, finding infringement and unfair competition. It ordered ATC and Wm. A. Rogers, Ltd. to: (a) render an accounting of profits, (b) pay Heacock an amount equal to those profits, and (c) permanently cease 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 that the judgment was not final and therefore not appealable under Section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, primarily because it included an order for an accounting.

ISSUE

Whether the judgment of the trial court, which ruled on the merits of trademark ownership and infringement and included 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 writs of mandamus, compelling 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 “Rogers” and the right to its exclusive use in the Philippines. The trial court’s judgment conclusively resolved these central issues on the merits in favor of Heacock and issued a permanent injunction. The order for an accounting of profits was merely incidental or ancillary to the judgment on the main cause of action. Following the principle that a decree is final if it conclusively determines the rights of the parties on the substantive issues, even if it orders an accounting in execution of that decree, the Court ruled the judgment was final. An immediate appeal promotes judicial efficiency; if the judgment on the merits is reversed on appeal, the accounting would be unnecessary and would avoid wasting time and resources. The Court’s decision aligns with the trend in Africa v. Africa (42 Phil. 934). The Court clarified it was not ruling on the merits of the trademark dispute, only on the appealability of the judgment.