GR L 30266; (June, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30266. June 29, 1984
UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION, EDWARDSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. AND HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Converse Rubber Corporation and Edwardson Manufacturing Co., Inc. sued petitioner Universal Rubber Products, Inc. for unfair competition with damages before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. After presenting several witnesses and evidence, private respondents requested and obtained from respondent Judge a subpoena duces tecum directing petitioner’s treasurer to produce all sales invoices, books, and ledgers recording sales of “Plymouth Star Player” rubber shoes from the start of manufacturing to the present. Petitioner moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it was unreasonable, oppressive, irrelevant, and issued without good cause, constituting a prohibited “fishing expedition.” The trial court denied the motion and subsequent reconsideration.
Petitioner then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court denied the petition, upholding the subpoena’s validity. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via review. During the pendency of this appeal, petitioner manifested that its establishment, along with all the records subject to the subpoena, was completely destroyed by fire on May 3, 1970.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the subpoena duces tecum for the production of sales records in an unfair competition case.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic due to the destruction of the records. However, it resolved the underlying legal principles for guidance. The Court held the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum was proper and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. In suits for unfair competition, a complainant is entitled to an accounting of the defendant’s profits from the infringing goods as an incident of the property right violated. The sales records sought were specifically described and directly relevant to the potential determination of compensatory damages, providing the factual basis for any monetary award. The Court rejected the argument that liability must be determined first before such discovery, as this would render nugatory the rights under the trademark law and cause unnecessary, repetitious proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court addressed petitioner’s ancillary claim that Converse, as an unlicensed foreign corporation, could not sue. It reiterated established doctrine that an unlicensed foreign corporation may maintain a suit to protect its corporate name, reputation, or goodwill when these have established themselves through the natural development of its trade, as in an action for unfair competition. The subpoena met the test of sufficient particularity, and its issuance was a valid exercise of judicial discretion aimed at preventing undue delay. The petition was dismissed.