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
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"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."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
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.