Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 91332 July 16, 1993PHILIP MORRIS, INC., BENSON & HEDGES (CANADA), INC., AND FABRIQUES OF TABAC REUNIES, S.A., petitioners vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, respondents.Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Pea & Nolasco Law Office for petitioners.Teresita Gandionco-Oledan for private respondent.MELO, J.:In the petition before us, petitioners Philip Morris, Inc., Benson and Hedges (Canada), Inc., and Fabriques of Tabac Reunies, S.A., are ascribing whimsical exercise of the faculty conferred upon magistrates by Section 6, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court when respondent Court of Appeals lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier had issued against Fortune Tobacco Corporation, herein private respondent, from manufacturing and selling "MARK" cigarettes in the local market.Banking on the thesis that petitioners' respective symbols "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK", also for cigarettes, must be protected against unauthorized appropriation, petitioners twice solicited the ancillary writ in the course the main suit for infringement but the court of origin was unpersuaded.Before we proceed to the generative facts of the case at bar, it must be emphasized that resolution of the issue on the propriety of lifting the writ of preliminary injunction should not be construed as a prejudgment of the suit below. Aware of the fact that the discussion we are about to enter into involves a mere interlocutory order, a discourse on the aspect infringement must thus be avoided. With these caveat, we shall now shift our attention to the events which spawned the controversy.As averred in the initial pleading, Philip Morris, Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, United States of America, and does business at 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York, United States of America. The two other plaintiff foreign corporations, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Philip Morris, Inc., are similarly not doing business in the Philippines but are suing on an isolated transaction. As registered owners "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK" per certificates of registration issued by the Philippine Patent Office on April 26, 1973, May 28, 1964, and March 25, 1964, plaintiffs-petitioners asserted that defendant Fortune Tobacco Corporation has no right to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the allegedly identical or confusingly similar trademark "MARK" in contravention of Section 22 of the Trademark Law, and should, therefore, be precluded during the pendency of the case from performing the acts complained of via a preliminary injunction (p. 75, Court of Appeals Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132).For its part, Fortune Tobacco Corporation admitted petitioners' certificates of registration with the Philippine Patent Office subject to the affirmative and special defense on misjoinder of party plaintiffs. Private respondent alleged further that it has been authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the trademark "MARK", and that "MARK" is a common word which cannot be exclusively appropriated (p.158, Court of Appeals Rollo in A.C.-G.R. SP No. 13132). On March 28, 1983, petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction was denied by the Presiding Judge of Branch 166 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed at Pasig, premised upon the following propositions:Plaintiffs admit in paragraph 2 of the complaint that ". . . they are not doing business in the Philippines and are suing on an isolated transaction . . .". This simply means that they are not engaged in the sale, manufacture, importation, expor[t]ation and advertisement of their cigarette products in the Philippines. With this admission, defendant asks: ". . . how could defendant's "MARK" cigarettes cause the former "irreparable damage" within the territorial limits of the Philippines?" Plaintiffs maintain that since their trademarks are entitled to protection by treaty obligation under Article 2 of the Paris Convention of which the Philippines is a member and ratified by Resolution No. 69 of the Senate of the Philippines and as such, have the force and effect of law under Section 12, Article XVII of our Constitution and since this is an action for a violation or infringement of a trademark or trade name by defendant, such mere allegation is sufficient even in the absence of proof to support it. To the mind of the Court, precisely, this is the issue in the main case to determine whether or not there has been an invasion of plaintiffs' right of property to such trademark or trade name. This claim of plaintiffs is disputed by defendant in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Answer; hence, this cannot be made a basis for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.There is no dispute that the First Plaintiff is the registered owner of trademar[k] "MARK VII" with Certificate of Registration No. 18723, dated April 26,1973 while the Second Plaintiff is likewise the registered owner of trademark "MARK TEN" under Certificate of Registration No. 11147, dated May 28, 1963 and the Third Plaintiff is a registrant of trademark "LARK" as shown by Certificate of Registration No. 10953 dated March 23, 1964, in addition to a pending application for registration of trademark "MARK VII" filed on November 21, 1980 under Application Serial No. 43243, all in the Philippine Patent Office. In same the manner, defendant has a pending application for registration of the trademark "LARK" cigarettes with the Philippine Patent Office under Application Serial No. 44008. Defendant contends that since plaintiffs are "not doing business in the Philippines" coupled the fact that the Director of Patents has not denied their pending application for registration of its trademark "MARK", the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction is premature. Plaintiffs contend that this act(s) of defendant is but a subterfuge to give semblance of good faith intended to deceive the public and patronizers into buying the products and create the impression that defendant's goods are identical with or come from the same source as plaintiffs' products or that the defendant is a licensee of plaintiffs when in truth and in fact the former is not. But the fact remains that with its pending application, defendant has embarked in the manufacturing, selling, distributing and advertising of "MARK" cigarettes. The question of good faith or bad faith on the part of defendant are matters which are evidentiary in character which have to be proven during the hearing on the merits; hence, until and unless the Director of Patents has denied defendant's application, the Court is of the opinion and so holds that issuance a writ of preliminary injunction would not lie.There is no question that defendant has been authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture cigarettes bearing the trademark "MARK" (Letter of Ruben B. Ancheta, Acting Commissioner addressed to Fortune Tobacco Corporation dated April 3, 1981, marked as Annex "A", defendant's "OPPOSITION, etc." dated September 24, 1982). However, this authority is qualified . . . that the said brands have been accepted and registered by the Patent Office not later than six (6) months after you have been manufacturing the cigarettes and placed the same in the market." However, this grant ". . . does not give you protection against any person or entity whose rights may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to your indicated trademarks/brands". As aforestated, the registration of defendant's application is still pending in the Philippine Patent Office.It has been repeatedly held in this jurisdiction as well as in the United States that the right or title of the applicant for injunction remedy must be clear and free from doubt. Because of the disastrous and painful effects of an injunction, Courts should be extremely careful, cautious and conscionable in the exercise of its discretion consistent with justice, equity and fair play.There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction; it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. The right must be clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the protecting preventive process of injunction. (Bonaparte v. Camden, etc. N. Co., 3 F. Cas. No. 1, 617, Baldw. 205, 217.)Courts of equity constantly decline to lay down any rule which injunction shall be granted or withheld. There is wisdom in this course, for it is impossible to foresee all exigencies of society which may require their aid to protect rights and restrain wrongs. (Merced M. Go v. Freemont, 7 Gal. 317, 321; 68 Am. Dec. 262.)It is the strong arm of the court; and to render its operation begin and useful, it must be exercised with great discretion, and when necessary requires it. (Attorney-General v. Utica Inc. Co., P. John Ch. (N.Y.) 371.)Having taken a panoramic view of the position[s] of both parties as viewed from their pleadings, the picture reduced to its minimum size would be this: At the crossroads are the two (2) contending parties, plaintiffs vigorously asserting the rights granted by law, treaty and jurisprudence to restrain defendant in its activities of manufacturing, selling, distributing and advertising its "MARK" cigarettes and now comes defendant who countered and refused to be restrained claiming that it has been authorized temporarily by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under certain conditions to do so as aforestated coupled by its pending application for registration of trademark "MARK" in the Philippine Patent Office. This circumstance in itself has created a dispute between the parties which to the mind of the Court does not warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.It is well-settled principle that courts of equity will refuse an application for the injunctive remedy where the principle of law on which the right to preliminary injunction rests is disputed and will admit of doubt, without a decision of the court of law establishing such principle although satisfied as to what is a correct conclusion of law upon the facts. The fact, however, that there is no such dispute or conflict does not in itself constitute a justifiable ground for the court to refuse an application for the injunctive relief. (Hackensack Impr. Commn. v. New Jersey Midland P. Co., 22 N.J. Eg. 94.)Hence, the status quo existing between the parties prior to the filing of this case should be maintained. For after all, an injunction, without reference to the parties, should be violent, vicious nor even vindictive. (pp. 338-341, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)In the process of denying petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order denying issuance of the requested writ, the court of origin took cognizance of the certification executed on January 30, 1984 by the Philippine Patent office(p. 348, Rollo.)It appears from the testimony of Atty. Enrique Madarang, Chief of the Trademark Division of the then Philippine Patent Office that Fortune's application for its trademark is still pending before said office (p. 311, Rollo).Petitioners thereafter cited supervening events which supposedly transpired since March 28, 1983, when the trial court first declined issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, that could alter the results of the case in that Fortune's application had been rejected, nay, barred by the Philippine Patent Office, and that the application had been forfeited by abandonment, but the trial court nonetheless denied the second motion for issuance of the injunctive writ on April 22, 1987, thus:For all the prolixity of their pleadings and testimonial evidence, the plaintiffs-movants have fallen far short of the legal requisites that would justify the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. For one, they did not even bother to establish by competent evidence that the products supposedly affected adversely by defendant's trademark now subject of an application for registration with the Philippine Patents Office, are in actual use in the Philippines. For another, they concentrated their fire on the alleged abandonment and forfeiture by defendant of said application for registration.The Court cannot help but take note of the fact that in their complaint plaintiffs included a prayer for issuance preliminary injunction. The petition was duly heard, and thereafter matter was assiduously discussed lengthily and resolved against plaintiffs in a 15-page Order issued by the undersigned's predecessor on March 28, 1983. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied in another well-argued 8 page Order issued on April 5, 1984,, and the matter was made to rest.However, on the strength of supposed changes in the material facts of this case, plaintiffs came up with the present motion citing therein the said changes which are: that defendant's application had been rejected and barred by the Philippine Patents Office, and that said application has been deemed abandoned and forfeited. But defendant has refiled the same.Plaintiffs' arguments in support of the present motion appear to be a mere rehash of their stand in the first above-mentioned petition which has already been ruled upon adversely against them. Granting that the alleged changes in the material facts are sufficient grounds for a motion seeking a favorable grant of what has already been denied, this motion just the same cannot prosper.In the first place there is no proof whatsoever that any of plaintiffs' products which they seek to protect from any adverse effect of the trademark applied for by defendant, is in actual use and available for commercial purposes anywhere in the Philippines. Secondly as shown by plaintiffs' own evidence furnished by no less than the chief of Trademarks Division of the Philippine Patent Office, Atty. Enrique Madarang, the abandonment of an application is of no moment, for the same can always be refiled. He said there is no specific provision in the rules prohibiting such refiling (TSN, November 21, 1986, pp. 60 & 64, Raviera). In fact, according to Madarang, the refiled application of defendant is now pending before the Patents Office. Hence, it appears that the motion has no leg to stand on. (pp. 350-351, Rollo in G. R. No. 91332.)Confronted with this rebuff, petitioners filed a previous petition for certiorari before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 78141, but the petition was referred to the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals initially issued a resolution which set aside the court of origin's order dated April 22, 1987, and granted the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Fortune, its agents, employees, and representatives, from manufacturing, selling, and advertising "MARK" cigarettes. The late Justice Cacdac, speaking for the First Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13132, remarked:There is no dispute that petitioners are the registered owners of the trademarks for cigarettes "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK".(Annexes B, C and D, petition). As found and reiterated by the Philippine Patent Office in two (2) official communications dated April 6, 1983 and January 24, 1984, the trademark "MARK" is "confusingly similar" to the trademarks of petitioners, hence registration was barred under Sec. 4 (d) of Rep. Act. No. 166, as amended (pp. 106, 139, SCA rollo). In a third official communication dated April 8, 1986, the trademark application of private respondent for the "MARK" under Serial No. 44008 filed on February 13, 1981 which was declared abandoned as of February 16, 1986, is now deemed forfeited, there being no revival made pursuant to Rule 98 of the Revised Rules of Practitioners in Trademark Cases." (p. 107, CA rollo). The foregoing documents or communications mentioned by petitioners as "the changes in material facts which occurred after March 28, 1983", are not also questioned by respondents.Pitted against the petitioners' documentary evidence, respondents pointed to (1) the letter dated January 30, 1979 (p. 137, CA rollo) of Conrado P. Diaz, then Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, temporarily granting the request of private respondent for a permit to manufacture two (2) new brands of cigarettes one of which is brand "MARK" filter-type blend, and (2) the certification dated September 26, 1986 of Cesar G. Sandico, Director of Patents (p. 138, CA rollo) issued upon the written request of private respondents' counsel dated September 17, 1986 attesting that the records of his office would show that the "trademark MARK" for cigarettes is now the subject of a pending application under Serial No. 59872 filed on September 16, 1986.Private respondent's documentary evidence provides the reasons neutralizing or weakening their probative values. The penultimate paragraph of Commissioner Diaz' letter of authority reads:Please be informed further that the authority herein granted does not give you protection against any person or entity whose rights may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to your above-named brands/trademark.while Director Sandico's certification contained similar conditions as follows:This Certification, however, does not give protection as against any person or entity whose right may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to the aforesaid trademark nor the right to register if contrary to the provisions of the Trademark Law, Rep. Act No. 166 as amended and the Revised Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases.The temporary permit to manufacture under the trademark "MARK" for cigarettes and the acceptance of the second application filed by private respondent in the height of their dispute in the main case were evidently made subject to the outcome of the said main case or Civil Case No. 47374 of the respondent Court. Thus, the Court has not missed to note the absence of a mention in the Sandico letter of September 26, 1986 of any reference to the pendency of the instant action filed on August 18, 1982. We believe and hold that petitioners have shown a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ of prohibitory injunction for the purposes stated in their complaint and subsequent motions for the issuance of the prohibitory writ. (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, 125 SCRA 276)The requisites for the granting of preliminary injunction are the existence of the right protected and the facts against which the injunction is to be directed as violative of said right. (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, supra; Ortigas & Co. vs. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326). It is a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case commanding an act which the Court regards as essential to justice and restraining an act it deems contrary to equity and good conscience (Rosauro vs. Cuneta, 151 SCRA 570). If it is not issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do or continue the doing of the act which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain, and thus make ineffectual the final judgment rendered afterwards granting the relief sought by the plaintiff (Calo vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445). Generally, its grant or denial rests upon the sound discretion of the Court except on a clear case of abuse (Belish Investment & Finance Co. vs. State House, 151 SCRA 636). Petitioners' right of exclusivity to their registered trademarks being clear and beyond question, the respondent court's denial of the prohibitive writ constituted excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse discretion. If the lower court does not grant preliminary injunction, the appellate court may grant the same. (Service Specialists, Inc. vs. Sheriff of Manila, 145 SCRA 139). (pp. 165-167, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)After private respondent Fortune's motion for reconsideration was rejected, a motion to dissolve the disputed writ of preliminary injunction with offer to post a counterbond was submitted which was favorably acted upon by the Court of Appeals, premised on the filing of a sufficient counterbond to answer for whatever perjuicio petitioners may suffer as a result thereof, to wit:The private respondent seeks to dissolve the preliminary injunction previously granted by this Court with an offer to file a counterbond. It was pointed out in its supplemental motion that lots of workers employed will be laid off as a consequence of the injunction and that the government will stand to lose the amount of specific taxes being paid by the private respondent. The specific taxes being paid is the sum total of P120,120, 295.98 from January to July 1989.The petitioners argued in their comment that the damages caused by the infringement of their trademark as well as the goodwill it generates are incapable of pecuniary estimation and monetary evaluation and not even the counterbond could adequately compensate for the damages it will incur as a result of the dissolution of the bond. In addition, the petitioner further argued that doing business in the Philippines is not relevant as the injunction pertains to an infringement of a trademark right.After a thorough re-examination of the issues involved and the arguments advanced by both parties in the offer to file a counterbond and the opposition thereto, WE believe that there are sound and cogent reasons for US to grant the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction by the offer of the private respondent to put up a counterbond to answer for whatever damages the petitioner may suffer as a consequence of the dissolution of the preliminary injunction.The petitioner will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages.While the rule is that an offer of a counterbond does not operate to dissolve an injunction previously granted, nevertheless, it is equally true that an injunction could be dissolved only upon good and valid grounds subject to the sound discretion of the court. As WE have maintained the view that there are sound and good reasons to lift the preliminary injunction, the motion to file a counterbond is granted. (pp. 53-54, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)Petitioners, in turn, filed their own motion for re-examination geared towards reimposition of the writ of preliminary injunction but to no avail (p. 55, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332).Hence, the instant petition casting three aspersions that respondent court gravely abused its discretion tantamount to excess of jurisdiction when:I. . . . it required, contrary to law and jurisprudence, that in order that petitioners may suffer irreparable injury due to the lifting of the injunction, petitioners should be using actually their registered trademarks in commerce in the Philippines;II. . . . it lifted the injunction in violation of section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court; andIII. . . . after having found that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction for having refused to issue the writ of injunction to restrain private respondent's acts that are contrary to equity and good conscience, it made a complete about face for legally insufficient grounds and authorized the private respondent to continue performing the very same acts that it had considered contrary to equity and good conscience, thereby ignoring not only the mandates of the Trademark Law, the international commitments of the Philippines, the judicial admission of private respondent that it will have no more right to use the trademark "MARK" after the Director of Patents shall have rejected the application to register it, and the admonitions of the Supreme Court. (pp. 24-25, Petition; pp. 25-26, Rollo.)To sustain a successful prosecution of their suit for infringement, petitioners, as foreign corporations not engaged in local commerce, rely on section 21-A of the Trademark Law reading as follows:Sec. 21-A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or trade-name has been registered or assigned under this act may bring an action hereunder for infringement, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint: Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (As inserted by Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 638.)to drive home the point that they are not precluded from initiating a cause of action in the Philippines on account of the principal perception that another entity is pirating their symbol without any lawful authority to do so. Judging from a perusal of the aforequoted Section 21-A, the conclusion reached by petitioners is certainly correct for the proposition in support thereof is embedded in the Philippine legal jurisprudence.Indeed, it was stressed in General Garments Corporation vs. Director of Patents (41 SCRA 50 [1971]) by then Justice (later Chief Justice) Makalintal that:Parenthetically, it may be stated that the ruling in the Mentholatum case was subsequently derogated when Congress, purposely to "counteract the effects" of said case, enacted Republic Act No. 638, inserting Section 21-A in the Trademark Law, which allows a foreign corporation or juristic person to bring an action in Philippine courts for infringement of a mark or tradename, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint."Petitioner argues that Section 21-A militates against respondent's capacity to maintain a suit for cancellation, since it requires, before a foreign corporation may bring an action, that its trademark or tradename has been registered under the Trademark Law. The argument misses the essential point in the said provision, which is that the foreign corporation is allowed thereunder to sue "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines" pursuant to the Corporation Law (precisely to counteract the effects of the decision in the Mentholatum case). (at p. 57.)However, on May, 21, 1984, Section 21-A, the provision under consideration, was qualified by this Court in La Chemise Lacoste S.A. vs. Fernandez (129 SCRA 373 [1984]), to the effect that a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines may have the right to sue before Philippine Courts, but existing adjective axioms require that qualifying circumstances necessary for the assertion of such right should first be affirmatively pleaded (2 Agbayani Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1991 Ed., p. 598; 4 Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Rev. Ed., 1986, p. 381). Indeed, it is not sufficient for a foreign corporation suing under Section 21-A to simply allege its alien origin. Rather, it must additionally allege its personality to sue. Relative to this condition precedent, it may be observed that petitioners were not remiss in averring their personality to lodge a complaint for infringement (p. 75, Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132) especially so when they asserted that the main action for infringement is anchored on an isolated transaction (p. 75, Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132; Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., 17 SCRA 1037 (1966), 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Fifth Rev. Ed., 1988, p. 103).Another point which petitioners considered to be of significant interest, and which they desire to impress upon us is the protection they enjoy under the Paris Convention of 1965 to which the Philippines is a signatory. Yet, insofar as this discourse is concerned, there is no necessity to treat the matter with an extensive response because adherence of the Philippines to the 1965 international covenant due to pact sunt servanda had been acknowledged in La Chemise (supra at page 390).Given these confluence of existing laws amidst the cases involving trademarks, there can be no disagreement to the guiding principle in commercial law that foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action for infringement primarily because of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law when the legal standing to sue is alleged, which petitioners have done in the case at hand.In assailing the justification arrived at by respondent court when it recalled the writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners are of the impression that actual use of their trademarks in Philippine commercial dealings is not an indispensable element under Article 2 of the Paris Convention in that:(2) . . . . no condition as to the possession of a domicile or establishment in the country where protection is claimed may be required of persons entitled to the benefits of the Union for the enjoyment of any industrial property of any industrial property rights. (p. 28, Petition; p. 29, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)Yet petitioners' perception along this line is nonetheless resolved by Sections 2 and 2-A of the Trademark Law which speak loudly, about necessity of actual commercial use of the trademark in the local forum:Sec. 2. What are registrable. Trademarks, tradenames and service marks owned by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in the Philippines and by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act; Provided, That said trademarks, tradenames, or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed; And provided, further, That the country of which the applicant for registration is a citizen grants by law substantially similar privileges to citizens of the Philippines, and such fact is officially certified, with a certified true copy of the foreign law translated into the English language, by the government of the foreign country to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. (As amended by R.A. No. 865).Sec. 2-A. Ownership of trademarks, tradenames and service marks; how acquired. Anyone who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in any lawful business, or who renders any lawful service in commerce, by actual use thereof in manufacture or trade, in business, and in the service rendered, may appropriate to his exclusive use a trademark, a tradename, or a service mark not so appropriated by another, to distinguish his merchandise, business or service from the merchandise, business or service of others. The ownership or possession of a trademark, tradename, service mark, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this section provided, shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other property rights known to the law. (As amended by R.A. No. 638). (Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 203 SCRA 583 [1991], at pp. 589-590; emphasis supplied.)Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal (Mortensen vs. Peters, Great Britain, High Court of Judiciary of Scotland, 1906, 8 Sessions 93; Paras, International Law and World Organization, 1971 Ed., p. 20). Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, Fourth ed., 1974, p. 16).The aforequoted basic provisions of our Trademark Law, according to Justice Gutierrez, Jr., in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (203 SCRA 583 [1991]), have been construed in this manner:A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a pre-requisite to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a tradename.xxx xxx xxxThese provisions have been interpreted in Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Actiengesellschaft (27 SCRA 1214 [1969]) in this way:A rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched because it has come down through the years is that actual use in commerce or business is a prerequisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership over a trademark.xxx xxx xxx. . . Adoption alone of a trademark would not give exclusive right thereto. Such right grows out of their actual use. Adoption is not use. One may make advertisements, issue circulars, give out price lists on certain goods; but these alone would not give exclusive right of use. For trademark is a creation of use. The underlying reason for all these is that purchasers have come to understand the mark as indicating the origin of the wares. Flowing from this is the trader's right to protection in the trade he has built up and the goodwill he has accumulated from use of the trademark. . . .In fact, a prior registrant cannot claim exclusive use of the trademark unless it uses it in commerce.We rule[d] in Pagasa Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals (118 SCRA 526 [1982]):3. The Trademark law is very clear. It requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to its registration. There is no dispute that respondent corporation was the first registrant, yet it failed to fully substantiate its claim that it used in trade or business in the Philippines the subject mark; it did not present proof to invest it with exclusive, continuous adoption of the trademark which should consist among others, of considerable sales since its first use. The invoices (Exhibits 7, 7-a, and 8-b) submitted by respondent which were dated way back in 1957 show that the zippers sent to the Philippines were to be used as "samples" and "of no commercial value". The evidence for respondent must be clear, definite and free from inconsistencies. (Sy Ching v. Gaw Lui, 44 SCRA 148-149) "Samples" are not for sale and therefore, the fact of exporting them to the Philippines cannot be considered to be equivalent to the "use" contemplated by the law. Respondent did not expect income from such "samples". There were no receipts to establish sale, and no proof were presented to show that they were subsequently sold in the Philippines. (Pagasa Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 526 [1982]; Emphasis Supplied)The records show that the petitioner has never conducted any business in the Philippines. It has never promoted its tradename or trademark in the Philippines. It is unknown to Filipino except the very few who may have noticed it while travelling abroad. It has never paid a single centavo of tax to the Philippine government. Under the law, it has no right to the remedy it seeks. (at pp. 589-591.)In other words, petitioners may have the capacity to sue for infringement irrespective of lack of business activity in the Philippines on account of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law but the question whether they have an exclusive right over their symbol as to justify issuance of the controversial writ will depend on actual use of their trademarks in the Philippines in line with Sections 2 and 2-A of the same law. It is thus incongruous for petitioners to claim that when a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Philippines files a complaint for infringement, the entity need not be actually using its trademark in commerce in the Philippines. Such a foreign corporation may have the personality to file a suit for infringement but it may not necessarily be entitled to protection due to absence of actual use of the emblem in the local market.Going back to the first assigned error, we can not help but notice the manner the ascription was framed which carries with it the implied but unwarranted assumption of the existence of petitioners' right to relief. It must be emphasized that this aspect of exclusive dominion to the trademarks, together with the corollary allegation of irreparable injury, has yet to be established by petitioners by the requisite quantum of evidence in civil cases. It cannot be denied that our reluctance to issue a writ of preliminary injunction is due to judicial deference to the lower courts, involved as there is mere interlocutory order (Villarosa vs. Teodoro, Sr., 100 Phil. 25 [1956]). In point of adjective law, the petition has its roots on a remedial measure which is but ancillary to the main action for infringement still pending factual determination before the court of origin. It is virtually needless to stress the obvious reality that critical facts in an infringement case are not before us more so when even Justice Feliciano's opinion observes that "the evidence is scanty" and that petitioners "have yet to submit copies or photographs of their registered marks as used in cigarettes" while private respondent has not, for its part, "submitted the actual labels or packaging materials used in selling its "Mark" cigarettes." Petitioners therefore, may not be permitted to presume a given state of facts on their so called right to the trademarks which could be subjected to irreparable injury and in the process, suggest the fact of infringement. Such a ploy would practically place the cart ahead of the horse. To our mind, what appears to be the insurmountable barrier to petitioners' portrayal of whimsical exercise of discretion by the Court of Appeals is the well-taken remark of said court that:The petitioner[s] will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages. (p. 54. Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)More telling are the allegations of petitioners in their complaint (p. 319, Rollo G.R. No. 91332) as well as in the very petition filed with this Court (p. 2, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332) indicating that they are not doing business in the Philippines, for these frank representations are inconsistent and incongruent with any pretense of a right which can breached (Article 1431, New Civil Code; Section 4, Rule 129; Section 3, Rule 58, Revised Rules of Court). Indeed, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the facts against which injunction is directed are violative of said right (Searth Commodities Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 622 [1992]). It may be added in this connection that albeit petitioners are holders of certificate of registration in the Philippines of their symbols as admitted by private respondent, the fact of exclusive ownership cannot be made to rest solely on these documents since dominion over trademarks is not acquired by the mere fact of registration alone and does not perfect a trademark right (Unno Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. General Milling Corporation, 120 SCRA 804 [1983]).Even if we disregard the candid statements of petitioners anent the absence of business activity here and rely on the remaining statements of the complaint below, still, when these averments are juxtaposed with the denials and propositions of the answer submitted by private respondent, the supposed right of petitioners to the symbol have thereby been controverted. This is not to say, however, that the manner the complaint was traversed by the answer is sufficient to tilt the scales of justice in favor of private respondent. Far from it. What we are simply conveying is another basic tenet in remedial law that before injunctive relief may properly issue, complainant's right or title must be undisputed and demonstrated on the strength of one's own title to such a degree as to unquestionably exclude dark clouds of doubt, rather than on the weakness of the adversary's evidence, inasmuch as the possibility of irreparable damage, without prior proof of transgression of an actual existing right, is no ground for injunction being mere damnum absque injuria (Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, 42 SCRA 577 [1971]; Francisco, Rules of Court, Second ed., 1985, p. 225; 3 Martin, Rules of Court, 1986 ed., p. 82).On the economic repercussion of this case, we are extremely bothered by the thought of having to participate in throwing into the streets Filipino workers engaged in the manufacture and sale of private respondent's "MARK" cigarettes who might be retrenched and forced to join the ranks of the many unemployed and unproductive as a result of the issuance of a simple writ of preliminary injunction and this, during the pendency of the case before the trial court, not to mention the diminution of tax revenues represented to be close to a quarter million pesos annually. On the other hand, if the status quo is maintained, there will be no damage that would be suffered by petitioners inasmuch as they are not doing business in the Philippines.With reference to the second and third issues raised by petitioners on the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction, it cannot be gainsaid that respondent court acted well within its prerogatives under Section 6, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court:Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of injunction. The injunction may be refused or, if granted ex parte, may be dissolved, upon the insufficiency of the complaint as shown by the complaint itself, with or without notice to the adverse party. It may also be refused or dissolved on other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendants which may be opposed by the plaintiff also by affidavits. It may further be refused or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause great damage to the defendant while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the defendant files a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages which the plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great, it must be modified.Under the foregoing rule, injunction may be refused, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on the following instances:(1) If there is insufficiency of the complaint as shown by the allegations therein. Refusal or dissolution may be granted in this case with or without notice to the adverse party.(2) If it appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer. The defendant, in this case, must file a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages which plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction.(3) On the other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendant which may be opposed by the plaintiff also affidavits.Modification of the injunction may also be ordered by the court if it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great. (3 Martin, Rules of Court, 1986 ed., p. 99; Francisco, supra, at p. 268.)In view of the explicit representation of petitioners in the complaint that they are not engaged in business in the Philippines, it inevitably follows that no conceivable damage can be suffered by them not to mention the foremost consideration heretofore discussed on the absence of their "right" to be protected. At any rate, and assuming in gratia argumenti that respondent court erroneously lifted the writ it previously issued, the same may be cured by appeal and not in the form of a petition for certiorari (Clark vs. Philippine Ready Mix Concrete Co., 88 Phil. 460 [1951]). Verily, and mindful of the rule that a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order which is always under the control of the court before final judgment, petitioners' criticism must fall flat on the ground, so to speak, more so when extinction of the previously issued writ can even be made without previous notice to the adverse party and without a hearing (Caluya vs. Ramos, 79 Phil. 640 [1974]; 3 Moran, Rules of Court, 1970 ed., p. 81).WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 14, 1989 and November 29, 1989 are hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 113213 August 15, 1994PAUL JOSEPH WRIGHT,petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE JOSE DE LA RAMA, RTC, BRANCH 139, MAKATI, M.M. and HON. FRANK DRILON, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,respondents.Rodrigo E. Mallari for petitioner.Aurora Salva Bautista collaborating for petitioner.KAPUNAN,J.:A paramount principle of the law of extradition provides that a State may not surrender any individual for any offense not included in a treaty of extradition. This principle arises from the reality of extradition as a derogation of sovereignty. Extradition is an intrusion into the territorial integrity of the host State and a delimitation of the sovereign power of the State within its own territory.1The act of extraditing amounts to a "delivery by the State of a person accused or convicted of a crime, to another State within whose territorial jurisdiction, actual or constructive, it was committed and which asks for his surrender with a view to execute justice."2As it is an act of "surrender" of an individual found in a sovereign State to another State which demands his surrender3, an act of extradition, even with a treaty rendered executory upon ratification by appropriate authorities, does not imposed an obligation to extradite on the requested State until the latter has made its own determination of the validity of the requesting State's demand, in accordance with the requested State's own interests.The principles of international law recognize no right of extradition apart from that arising from treaty.4Pursuant to these principles, States enter into treaties of extradition principally for the purpose of bringing fugitives of justice within the ambit of their laws, under conventions recognizing the right of nations to mutually agree to surrender individuals within their jurisdiction and control, and for the purpose of enforcing their respective municipal laws. Since punishment of fugitive criminals is dependent mainly on the willingness of host State to apprehend them and revert them to the State where their offenses were committed,5jurisdiction over such fugitives and subsequent enforcement of penal laws can be effectively accomplished only by agreement between States through treaties of extradition.Desiring to make more effective cooperation between Australia and the Government of the Philippines in the suppression of crime,6the two countries entered into a Treaty of Extradition on the 7th of March 1988. The said treaty was ratified in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution in a Resolution adopted by the Senate on September 10, 1990 and became effective thirty (30) days after both States notified each other in writing that the respective requirements for the entry into force of the Treaty have been complied with.7The Treaty adopts a "non-list, double criminality approach" which provides for broader coverage of extraditable offenses between the two countries and (which) embraces crimes punishable by imprisonment for at least one (1) year. Additionally, the Treaty allows extradition for crimes committed prior to the treaty's date of effectivity, provided that these crimes were in the statute books of the requesting State at the time of their commission.Under the Treaty, each contracting State agrees to extradite. . . "persons. . .wanted for prosecutionof the imposition or enforcement of a sentence in the Requesting State for an extraditable offense."8A request for extradition requires, if the person is accused of an offense, the furnishing by the requesting State of either a warrant for the arrest or a copy of the warrant of arrest of the person, or, where appropriate, a copy of the relevant charge against the person sought to be extradited.9In defining the extraditable offenses, the Treaty includes all offenses "punishable under the Laws of both Contracting States by imprisonment for a period of at least one (1) year, or by a more severe penalty."10For the purpose of the definition, the Treaty states that:(a) an offense shall be an extraditable offense whether or not the laws of the Contracting States place the offense within the same category or denominate the offense by the same terminology;(b) the totality of the acts or omissions alleged against the person whose extradition is requested shall be taken into account in determining the constituent elements of the offense.11Petitioner, an Australian Citizen, was sought by Australian authorities for indictable crimes in his country. Extradition proceedings were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which rendered a decision ordering the deportation of petitioner. Said decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals; hence, petitioner came to this Court by way of review oncertiorari,to set aside the order of deportation. Petitioner contends that the provision of the Treaty giving retroactive effect to the extradition treaty amounts to anex post factolaw which violates Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. He assails the trial court's decision ordering his extradition, arguing that the evidence adduced in the court below failed to show that he is wanted for prosecution in his country. Capsulized, all the principal issues raised by the petitioner before this Court strike at the validity of the extradition proceedings instituted by the government against him.The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals,12are undisputed:On March 17, 1993, Assistant Secretary Sime D. Hidalgo of the Department of Foreign Affairs indorsed to the Department of Justice Diplomatic Note No. 080/93 dated February 19, 1993 from the Government of Australia to the Department of Justice through Attorney General Michael Duffy. Said Diplomatic Note was a formal request for the extradition of Petitioner Paul Joseph Wright who is wanted for the following indictable crimes:1. Wright/Orr Matter one count of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and2. Wright/Cracker Matter Thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Properties by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; one count of attempting to Obtain Property by Deception contrary to Section 321(m) of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and one count of Perjury contrary to Section 314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958, which crimes were allegedly committed in the following manner:The one (1) count of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81 (1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and co-offender, Herbert Lance Orr's, dishonesty in obtaining $315,250 from Mulcahy, Mendelson and Round Solicitors (MM7R), secured by a mortgage on the property in Bangholme, Victoria owned by Ruven Nominees Pty. Ltd., a company controlled by a Rodney and a Mitchell, by falsely representing that all the relevant legal documents relating to the mortgage had been signed by Rodney and Janine Mitchell.The thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and co-offender Mr. John Carson Craker's receiving a total of approximately 11.2 in commission (including $367,044 in bonus commission) via Amazon Bond Pty. Ltd., depending on the volume of business written, by submitting two hundred fifteen (215) life insurance proposals, and paying premiums thereon (to the acceptance of the policies and payment of commissions) to the Australian Mutual Provident (AMP) Society through the Office of Melbourne Mutual Insurance, of which respondent is an insurance agent, out of which life proposals none are in existence and approximately 200 of which are alleged to have been false, in one or more of the following ways:( i ) some policy-holders signed up only because they were told the policies were free (usually for 2 years) and no payments were required.(ii) some policy-holders were offered cash inducements ($50 or $100) to sign and had to supply a bank account no longer used (at which a direct debit request for payment of premiums would apply). These policy-holders were also told no payments by them were required.(iii) some policy-holders were introduced through the "Daily Personnel Agency", and again were told the policies were free for 2 years as long as an unused bank account was applied.(iv) some policy-holders were found not to exist.The one count of Attempting to Obtain Property by Deception contrary to Section 321(m) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and Mr. Craker's attempting to cause the payment of $2,870.68 commission to a bank account in the name of Amazon Bond Pty. Ltd. by submitting one proposal for Life Insurance to the AMP Society, the policy-holder of which does not exist with the end in view of paying the premiums thereon to insure acceptance of the policy and commission payments.The one count of Perjury contrary to Section 314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and Mr. Craker's signing and swearing before a Solicitor holding a current practicing certificate pursuant to the Legal Profession Practice Act (1958), a Statutory Declaration attesting to the validity of 29 of the most recent Life Insurance proposals of AMP Society and containing three (3) false statements.Pursuant to Section 5 of PD No. 1069, in relation to the Extradition Treaty concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and Australia on September 10, 1990, extradition proceedings were initiated on April 6, 1993 by the State Counsels of the Department of Justice before the respondent court.In its Order dated April 13, 1993, the respondent court directed the petitioner to appear before it on April 30, 1993 and to file his answer within ten days. In the same order, the respondent Judge ordered the NBI to serve summons and cause the arrest of the petitioner.The respondent court received return of the warrant of arrest and summons signed by NBI Senior Agent Manuel Almendras with the information that the petitioner was arrested on April 26, 1993 at Taguig, Metro Manila and was subsequently detained at the NBI detention cell where petitioner, to date, continue to be held.Thereafter, the petitioner filed his answer.In the course of the trial, the petitioner testified that he was jobless, married to a Filipina, Judith David, with whom he begot a child; that he has no case in Australia; that he is not a fugitive from justice and is not aware of the offenses charged against him; that he arrived in the Philippines on February 25, 1990 returned to Australia on March 1, 1990, then back to the Philippines on April 11, 1990, left the Philippines again on April 24, 1990 for Australia and returned to the Philippines on May 24, 1990, again left for Australia on May 29, 1990 passing by Singapore and then returned to the Philippines on June 25, 1990 and from that time on, has not left the Philippines; and that his tourist visa has been extended but he could not produce the same in court as it was misplaced, has neither produced any certification thereof, nor any temporary working visa.The trial court, in its decision dated 14 June 1993, granting the petition for extradition requested by the Government of Australia, concluding that the documents submitted by the Australian Government meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Treaty of Extradition and that the offenses for which the petitioner were sought in his country are extraditable offenses under Article 2 of the said Treaty. The trial court, moreover, held that under the provisions of the same Article, extradition could be granted irrespective of when the offense in relation to the extradition was committed, provided that the offense happened to be an offense in the requesting State at the time the acts or omissions constituting the same were committed.13Petitioner challenged the decision of the Regional Trial Court before the Court of Appeals assigning the following errors:I. THAT THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE EXTRADITION TREATY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED OFFENSES FOR WHICH PETITIONER IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTRADITED TOOK PLACE IN 1988-1989 AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA.II. THAT THE ACT OF THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE IN GIVING RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA AMOUNTS TO AN "EX POST FACTOLAW" AND VIOLATES SECTION 21, ARTICLE VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.III. THAT THE HON. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE EXTRADITION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED DO NOT SHOW THAT PETITIONER IS WANTED FOR PROSECUTION IN AUSTRALIA.IV. THAT THE HON. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN MISINTERPRETING THE EXTENDED STAY OF PETITIONER AS EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER'S DESIGN TO HIDE AND EVADE PROSECUTION IN AUSTRALIA.V. THAT THE HON. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE EXTRADITION OF PETITIONER WITHOUT SPECIFYING IN HIS ORDER OR DECISION THE SPECIFIC CHARGES FOR WHICH PETITIONER IS TO STAND TRIAL IN AUSTRALIA.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on September 14, 1993 and denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on December 16, 1993.14Reiterating substantially the same assignments of error which he interposed in the Court of Appeals, petitioner challenges in this petition the validity of the extradition order issued by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals under the Treaty. Petitioner vigorously argues that the trial court order violates the Constitutional prohibition againstex post factolaws. He avers that for the extradition order to be valid, the Australian government should show that he "has a criminal case pending before a competent court" in that country "which can legally pass judgement or acquittal or conviction upon him."Clearly, a close reading of the provisions of the Treaty previously cited, which are relevant to our determination of the validity of the extradition order, reveals that the trial court committed no error in ordering the petitioner's extradition. Conformably with Article 2, Section 2 of the said Treaty, the crimes for which the petitioner was charged and for which warrants for his arrest were issued in Australia were undeniably offenses in the Requesting State at the time they were alleged to have been committed. From its examination of the charges against the petitioner, the trial court correctly determined that the corresponding offenses under our penal laws are Articles 315(2) and 183 of the Revised Penal Code on swindling/estafa and false testimony/perjury, respectively.15The provisions of Article 6 of the said Treaty pertaining to the documents required for extradition are sufficiently clear and require no interpretation. The warrant for the arrest of an individual or a copy thereof, a statement of each and every offense and a statement of the acts and omissions which were alleged against the person in respect of each offense are sufficient to show that a person is wanted for prosecution under the said article. All of these documentary requirements were dully submitted to the trial court in its proceedingsa quo. For purposes of the compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, the signature and official seal of the Attorney-General of Australia were sufficient to authenticate all the documents annexed to the Statement of the Acts and Omissions, including the statement itself.16In conformity with the provisions of Article 7 of the Treaty, the appropriate documents and annexes were signed by "an officer in or of the Requesting State"17"sealed with . . . (a) public seal of the Requesting State or of a Minister of State, or of a Department or officer of the Government of the Requesting State,"18and "certified by a diplomatic or consular officer of the Requesting State accredited to the Requested State."19The last requirement was accomplished by the certification made by the Philippine Consular Officer in Canberra, Australia.The petitioner's contention that a person sought to be extradited should have a "criminal case pending before a competent court in the Requesting State which can legally pass judgement of acquittal or conviction"20stretches the meaning of the phrase "wanted for prosecution" beyond the intended by the treaty provisions because the relevant provisions merely require "a warrant for the arrest or a copy of the warrant for the arrest of the person sought to be extradited."21Furthermore, the 'Charge and Warrant of Arrest Sheets' attest to the fact that petitioner is not only wanted for prosecution but has, in fact, abscondedto evade arrest and criminal prosecution. Since a charge or information under the Treaty is required only when appropriate,i.e., in cases where an individual charged before a competent court in the Requesting State thereafter absconds to the Requested State, a charge or a copy thereof is not required if the offender has in fact already absconded before a criminal complaint could be filed. As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, limiting the phrase "wanted for prosecution" to person charged with an information or a criminal complaint renders the Treaty ineffective over individuals who abscond for the purpose of evading arrest and prosecution.22This brings us to another point raised by the petitioner both in the trial court and in the Court of Appeals. May the extradition of the petitioner who is wanted for prosecution by the government of Australia be granted in spite of the fact that the offenses for which the petitioner is sought in his country were allegedly committed prior to the date of effectivity of the Treaty.Petitioner takes the position that under Article 18 of the Treaty its enforcement cannot be given retroactive effect. Article 18 states:ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATIONThis Treaty shall enter into force thirty (30) days after the date on which the Contracting States have notified each other in writing that their respective requirements for the entry into force of this Treaty have been complied with.Either contracting State may terminate this Treaty by notice in writing at any time and it shall cease to be in force on the one hundred and eightieth day after the day on which notice is given.We fail to see how the petitioner can infer a prohibition against retroactive enforcement from this provision. The first paragraph of Article 18 refers to the Treaty's date of effectivity; the second paragraph pertains to its termination. Absolutely nothing in the said provision relates to, much less, prohibits retroactive enforcement of the Treaty.On the other hand, Article 2(4) of the Treaty unequivocally provides that:4. Extradition may be granted pursuant to provisions of this Treaty irrespective of when the offense in relation to which extradition is requested was committed, provided that:(a) it was an offense in the Requesting State at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the offense; and(b) the acts or omissions alleged would, if they had taken place in the Territory of the Requested State at the time of the making of the request for extradition, have constituted an offense against the laws in force in that state.Thus, the offenses for which petitioner is sought by his government are clearly extraditable under Article 2 of the Treaty. They were offenses in the Requesting State at the time they were committed, and, irrespective of the time they were committed, they fall under the panoply of the Extradition Treaty's provisions, specifically, Article 2 paragraph 4, quoted above.Does the Treaty's retroactive application violate the Constitutional prohibition againstex post facto laws?Early commentators understoodex post factolaws to include all laws of retrospective application, whether civil or criminal.23However, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, citing Blackstone, The Federalist and other early U.S. state constitutions inCalder vs.Bull24concluded that the concept was limited only to penal and criminal statutes. As conceived under our Constitution,ex post factolaws are 1) statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such act was not an offense when committed; 2) laws which, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime; 3) statutes which prescribes greater punishment for a crime already committed; or, 4) laws which alter the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant.25"Applying the constitutional principle, the (Court) has held that the prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects the substantial rights of the accused."26This being so, there is no absolutely no merit in petitioner's contention that the ruling of the lower court sustaining the Treaty's retroactive application with respect to offenses committed prior to the Treaty's coming into force and effect, violates the Constitutional prohibition againstex post factolaws. As the Court of Appeals correctly concluded, the Treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute. "It merely provides for the extradition of persons wanted for prosecution of an offense or a crime which offense or crime was already committed or consummated at the time the treaty was ratified."27In signing the Treaty, the government of the Philippines has determined that it is within its interests to enter into agreement with the government of Australia regarding the repatriation of persons wanted for criminal offenses in either country. The said Treaty was concurred and ratified by the Senate in a Resolution dated September 10, 1990. Having been ratified in accordance with the provision of the 1987 Constitution, the Treaty took effect thirty days after the requirements for entry into force were complied with by both governments.WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, we hereby AFFIRM the same and DENY the instant petition for lack of merit.SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 148571 September 24, 2002

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Represented by the Philippine Department of Justice,petitioner,vs.HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila andMARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO,respondentDavide Jr., CJ, Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Morales and Callejo, Sr.D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN,J.: In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general, the answer to these two novel questions is "No." The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as the exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision.

The Case Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to void and set aside the Orders dated May 23, 20011and July 3, 20012issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42.3The first assailed Order set for hearing petitioners application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Respondent Mark B. Jimenez. The second challenged Order, on the other hand, directed the issuance of a warrant, but at the same time granted bail to Jimenez. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [Court] finds probable cause against respondent Mark Jimenez. Accordingly let a Warrant for the arrest of the respondent be issued. Consequently and taking into consideration Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Court fixes the reasonable amount of bail for respondents temporary liberty at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), the same to be paid in cash. Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender to this Court his passport and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is likewise directed to include the name of the respondent in its Hold Departure List."4 Essentially, the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order, the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody.The Facts This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion.5 Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty,6the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25.7The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in the said GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 -- dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a comment and supporting evidence.8 Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this Court issued its October 17, 2000 Resolution.9By an identical vote of 9-6 -- after three justices changed their votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution has become final and executory. Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case No. 01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion, in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4) false statements, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign contributions, in violation of Title 2 US Code Sections 441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,"10which prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, petitioner manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June 15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.11After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001.12 Hence, this Petition.13Issues Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this Court:I. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069.II. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer for bail and in allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty because: 1. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail, in the absence of any law that provides for such power. 2. Section 13, Article III (right to bail clause) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 4, Rule 114 (Bail) of the Rules of Court, as amended, which [were] relied upon, cannot be used as bases for allowing bail in extradition proceedings. 3. The presumption is against bail in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition. 4. On the assumption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition, bail is not a matter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of special circumstances. 5. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition proceedings, the public respondent received no evidence of special circumstances which may justify release on bail. 6. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high, and no special circumstance exists that will engender a well-founded belief that he will not flee. 7. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance by the Philippines with its obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. 8. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10, 2001 in the case entitled Eduardo T. Rodriguez et al. vs. The Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 17, Manila, CA-G.R. SP No. 64589, relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail, had been recalled before the issuance of the subject bail orders."14 In sum, the substantive questions that this Court will address are: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. Preliminarily, we shall take up the alleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), instead of in this Court.15We shall also preliminarily discuss five extradition postulates that will guide us in disposing of the substantive issues.The Courts Ruling The Petition is meritorious.Preliminary Matters Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a Motion for Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: "(1) the issues were fully considered by such court after requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda and position papers on the matter and thus, the filing of a reconsideration motion would serve no useful purpose; (2) the assailed orders are a patent nullity, absent factual and legal basis therefor; and (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent, as the passage of sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to escape and avoid extradition; and (4) the issues raised are purely of law."16 For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA, petitioner submits the following reasons: "(1) even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court takes cognizance of the issues and decides them, the parties would still bring the matter to this Honorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for all [and] to have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to follow; (2) the Honorable Court of Appeals had in one case17ruled on the issue by disallowing bail but the court below refused to recognize the decision as a judicial guide and all other courts might likewise adopt the same attitude of refusal; and (3) there are pending issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of Appeals, which, unless guided by the decision that this Honorable Court will render in this case, would resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give them opportunity to flee and thus, cause adverse effect on the ability of the Philippines to comply with its obligations under existing extradition treaties."18 As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency.19As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.20Aside from being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are of public interest. Hence, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with. Likewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are special and important reasons therefor.21In Fortich v. Corona22we stated: [T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly [before] it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases, namely: Uy vs. Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. Arranz, Bercero vs. De Guzman, and, Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. As we have further stated in Cuaresma:x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. x x x. Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed resolution. Moreover, x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money. That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals:23 Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. In the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case. In a number of other exceptional cases,24we held as follows: This Court has original jurisdiction, concurrent with that of Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, and we entertain direct resort to us in cases where special and important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the same." In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in extradition proceedings, we deem it best to take cognizance of the present case. Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is, as yet, no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts. Five Postulates of Extradition The substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on extradition. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent.25Since PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory,26understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us in properly deciding the issues raised here.1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime. First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime27by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer28of a fugitive29from one state to the other. With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel, the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become more frequent. Accordingly, governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries. Today, "a majority of nations in the world community have come to look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of crime."30It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law.31 An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction competent to try and punish them is that the number of criminals seeking refuge abroad will be reduced. For to the extent that efficient means of detection and the threat of punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime within the territorial limits of a State, so the existence of effective extradition arrangements and the consequent certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order to escape the consequence of crime. x x x. From an absence of extradition arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly does the commission of crime itself."32 In Secretary v. Lantion33we explained: The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered [into] by our government. More and more, crimes are becoming the concern of one world. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civilized countries. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes, especially transnational crimes." Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country.2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each others legal system and judicial process.34More pointedly, our duly authorized representatives signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited.35That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to the requesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein; otherwise, the treaty would not have been signed, or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality.3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,36extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore; in extradition which is sui generis -- in a class by itself -- they are not. An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. To begin with, the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x.x x x x x x x x x There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. Finally, unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nations foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite." Given the foregoing, it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited.37Such determination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless duplication and delay. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. It is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction.38The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is extraditable.394. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty, and our legislative branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. Fulfilling our obligatio