Fortune Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Health

Fortune Tobacco Company sought a temporary restraining order against the Department of Health's Administrative Order (AO) 2010-0013, based on its contention that the order (which seeks to bring the Philippines' existing Tobacco Control Law into compliance with the FCTC) is null and void and without legal effect because it is in contravention to an already existing statute, namely R.A. No. 9211, known as the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003.  Claiming that AO 2010-0013 was issued as an "invalid exercise and usurpation of legislative power," petitioners specifically took issue with the provisions of the AO that required additional graphical warnings. 

Finding that preliminary injunctions are provisional remedies intended merely to preserve the status quo until the issue could be fully litigated on the merits before a trial court, the Court ruled the interest of justice would be "better served if the status quo is maintained."  The Court thus granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the AO, and requiring a 5,000,000 peso bond to compensate the Department of Health in the event that the ultimate court decision was unfavorable.

Fortune Tobacco Corp. v. Dep't of Health, SCA No. 2010-796-MK, Philippines Regional Trial Court Branch 272 Marikina City (2010).

  • Philippines
  • Jul 1, 2010
  • Regional Trial Court
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Fortune Tobacco Corporation

Defendant Department of Health

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"While it is true that AO 2010-0013 enjoys the presumption of validity and constitutionality until proven otherwise, but for the purpose of issuing an injunctive relief, this matter still lacks relevance and premature to consider. Obviously, a law need not be declared unconstitutional first before a preliminary injunction against its enforcement may be granted...After thorough study of the allegations and arguments raised by the petitioner both in its petition and memorandum, the Court holds that the interest of justice will be better served if the status quo is maintained."