PHILIPPINES Law and Practice Contributed by: Mark Leo Bejemino, Maria Patricia Cruz and Edward King Chua, Villaraza & Angangco
the enjoined party fails to comply with the injunction, they may be held in contempt, which can result in pen ‑ alties, including fines or imprisonment. The court has the authority to impose further measures to ensure the enforcement of the injunction. The enforcement procedure typically occurs swiftly, but timelines may be affected by the defendant’s co-operation and any legal challenges raised. Finally, it is possible to obtain a stay of a final injunc ‑ tion pending appeal, although such relief is not auto ‑ matic. Generally, judgments in actions for injunction are immediately executory and are enforceable upon rendition, and an appeal does not stay their execution unless otherwise ordered by the court. Nonetheless, on appeal, the appellate court has the discretion to suspend, modify, restore or grant the injunction or related relief. To obtain a stay, the appealing party must demon ‑ strate that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunc ‑ tion is enforced during the pendency of the appeal and that there are substantial or serious grounds rais ‑ ing doubt regarding the correctness of the judgment. The court will also weigh the relative harm to both parties in deciding whether to grant a stay. A stay of execution may be made subject to such terms as the court may deem proper, including the posting of a bond or other security to protect the rights of the adverse party. A bond may therefore be required in order to lift or suspend the effect of a final injunc ‑ tion pending appeal, with the amount determined by the court based on the potential damages or preju ‑ dice that the enjoined party may suffer if the appeal is unsuccessful; there is no fixed or typical quantum, as it varies according to the facts and circumstances of each case. 5.3 Discretion to Award Injunctive Relief (Final or Preliminary) The Philippine courts have discretion to award dam ‑ ages in lieu of an injunction in certain cases. If the court determines that granting an injunction would be unjust or overly burdensome, or would cause dis ‑ proportionate harm, it may opt to award damages as a remedy instead. This is particularly relevant when the harm to the applicant can be adequately compen ‑
sated through monetary damages. In such cases, the court balances the nature of the harm to both parties against the need for an equitable resolution. Proportionality and public interest arguments are highly relevant in life sciences and pharma patent liti ‑ gation. Courts may take broader societal considera ‑ tions into account when deciding whether to grant or limit injunctive relief, such as access to medicines, public health concerns or the impact on competition. In cases where the injunction could restrict access to essential drugs or harm public welfare, the court may opt for a more limited or proportional injunction, or may even deny an injunction entirely in favour of a different remedy, such as damages. The court’s focus will often be on finding a balance between protecting the patent and its societal impact. 5.4 Damages Damages can be: • actual or compensatory; • moral; • nominal; • temperate or moderate; • liquidated; or • exemplary or corrective. Actual damages pertain to pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant as he or she may duly prove. Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act for omission, and cover: • physical suffering; • mental anguish; • fright; • serious anxiety; • besmirched reputation; • wounded feelings; • moral shock; • social humiliation; and • similar injury. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff that has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognised, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any
169 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook