Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hon. Winlove Dumayas, et al.

A smoker sued a tobacco company alleging that the company tempted him through television advertisements to begin smoking at the age of fourteen, which resulted in addiction to cigarettes and subsequent contraction of lung cancer. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which the trial court denied.  This Court held that the trial court had not gravely abused its discretion so as to call into question the jurisdiction of the court over the issue.  The Court further noted that prescription had not expired prior to commencement of the suit.

Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hon. Winlove Dumayas, et al., CA-G.R. SP No. 93353, Republic of the Philippines Court of Appeals, Manila, Seventh Division (2008).

  • Philippines
  • Sep 22, 2008
  • Republic of the Philippines Court of Appeals, Manila, Seventh Division
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.

Defendant

  • Hon. Winlove Dumayas, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59
  • Vincent P. Reyes

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In any event, the pleadings and evidence so far presented showed that the cause of action had not prescribed. Settled is the doctrine that a complaint may be dismissed on the basis of prescription when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show that it is indeed time-barred. Prescription may be established during the hearing of the motion to dismiss. As held, “what is essential only xxx is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record; either in the averments of the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise established by the evidence." This is in accordance with the provision of Section 2, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that “at the hearing of the motion (to dismiss), the parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved except those not available at that time.” There is no question that the original complaint was filed on May 31, 2004, and the amended complaint on October 28, 2004. The amended complaint merely indicated the new address of petitioner. Since no new theory, cause of action, issues or demands were introduced in the amended complaint, the action is deemed to have commenced on the date the original complaint was filed, or on May 31, 2004."