Scribd
Upload
306 views1 page

Twin Ace vs. Rufina

Twin Ace manufactures rum, wine, and liquor under the Tanduay brand. It registers its bottle designs and reuses bottles several times to reduce costs. Rufina produces patis and food seasonings and uses Twin Ace bottles without permission. The appellate court ruled in favor of Twin Ace, awarding nominal damages of 50,000 pesos to Rufina. Nominal damages are given to recognize a violated right even if no loss was suffered.

Uploaded by

Ar Line
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
306 views1 page

Twin Ace vs. Rufina

Twin Ace manufactures rum, wine, and liquor under the Tanduay brand. It registers its bottle designs and reuses bottles several times to reduce costs. Rufina produces patis and food seasonings and uses Twin Ace bottles without permission. The appellate court ruled in favor of Twin Ace, awarding nominal damages of 50,000 pesos to Rufina. Nominal damages are given to recognize a violated right even if no loss was suffered.

Uploaded by

Ar Line
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TWIN ACE VS.

RUFINA

FACTS: Twin Ace is a private domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of rhum, wines and liquor
under the name and style Tanduay Distillers. It has registered its mark of ownership of its bottles with the
Bureau of Patent, Trademarks and Technology Transfer under Republic Act No. 623. In the conduct
of its business, it sells its products to the public excluding the bottles. It makes substantial investments
in brand new bottles which it buys from glass factories and which they use for about five times in
order to recover the cost of acquisition. Twin Ace thus retrieves its used empty bottles, washes
and uses them over and over again as containers for its products.
On the other hand, Rufina is engaged in the production, extraction, fermentation and manufacture
of patis and other food seasonings and is engaged in the buying and selling of all kinds of foods,
merchandise and products for domestic use or for export to other countries. In producing patis and
other food seasonings, Rufina uses as containers bottles owned by Twin Ace without any
authority or permission from the latter. In the process, Rufina is unduly benefited from the use of
the bottles.
Trial court ruled in favor of Rufina.
Appellate court modified the decision by deleting all damages except nominal damages which was
reduced to 50,000 pesos.
ISSUE: WON Rufina is entitled to damages
HELD: Yes.
RATIO: On the issue of nominal damages, Article 2222 of the Civil Code states that the court may award
nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every other
case where any property right has been invaded. Nominal damages are given in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. In another case, this Court held
that when plaintiff suffers some species of injury not enough to warrant an award of actual
damages, the court may award nominal damages. Considering the foregoing, we find that the award of
nominal damages to Rufina in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is reasonable, warranted
and justified.

You might also like