FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 120961 October 2, 1997
DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON, INC. OR WASHINGTON DISTILLERY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Separate Opinions
VITUG, J., dissenting:
I regret that I am unable to join my colleagues in the modification of the decision under reconsideration. The Court's ruling did say that the ownership of the "marked bottles" passed on to the consumer but it was understood to be subject to the "statutory limitations on the use of registered containers and to the trademark rights of the registrant." Republic Act No. 623, which is the law applicable, prohibits the use of registered bottles or containers without the written consent of the manufacturer.1 This enactment has heretofore been upheld by the Court in Cagayan Valley Enterprise, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.2
The marked bottles in the instant case were evidently being used by petitioner for its own "Gin Seven" products without the consent of La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. ("LTDI"). The Court of Appeals itself made such a finding of unauthorized commercial use by petitioner. Our ponencia did not thus rely merely, albeit not at all unwarranted had it been otherwise, on the statutory prima facia presumption of illegal use. The matter is on record, and it cannot just be ignored. For how else would petitioner insist on keeping the marked bottles if it were not for its own continued use.
Given the circumstances, the unavoidable alternative would be, such as arrived at in the ponencia sought to be reconsidered, for LTDI (the registrant of the trademark) to simply pay petitioner just compensation for the seized marked bottles.
WHEREFORE, I am constrained to vote, most respectfully, for the denial of the second motion for reconsideration.ℒαwρhi৷
Footnotes
1 Section 2, Republic Act No. 623.
2 179 SCRA 213.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
