Trial court ordered to hear smoker’s damage suit vs Philip Morris
10/01/2008 | 01:20 AM
MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has ordered a Makati regional trial court to continue hearing a P500,000 damage suit filed by a smoker against Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, the court rejected the cigarette firm’s argument that the period within which the complainant had to file the suit had lapsed.
Officials of the cigarette company declined to comment.
Complainant Vincent P. Reyes has blamed Philip Morris for his lung cancer, claiming that the cigarette maker had enticed him to take up smoking.
The complainant earlier claimed he had started smoking at the age of 14 because of Philip Morris’ "barrage of television advertisements." After years of being hooked, he was diagnosed with lung cancer in October 2000.
The damage suit was filed on May 31, 2004. An amended complaint was filed on October 28 that year since the original had not been served on Philip Morris, which had transferred offices at the time.
The cigarette firm sought the dismissal of the case, arguing that the injury had been caused by fault, negligence or imprudence but without malice.
Under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, it added, cases such as this must be initiated within four years.
But based on television interviews given by Mr. Reyes, he had admitted having been diagnosed with cancer as early as 1999, the cigarette company said.
It added that the suit was filed beyond the four-year period prescribed by law.
The Makati court, however, found merit in the case by denying Philip Morris’ dismissal plea.
This led the company to seek an injunction before the appellate court, saying the lower court had not ruled on its argument.
In favoring the smoker, the appellate court rejected Philip Morris’ claim that the case had lapsed, as it refused to acknowledge the television interviews submitted to it by the firm.
"The foregoing statements in the interview are not clear and convincing and cannot prevail over the explicit allegation in the complaint that the private respondent [had been] diagnosed [with] have lung cancer in 2000," the court said.
It added that while it would have been wiser for the trial court to have given out a ruling on the issue of the case having lapsed, it had never abused its authority.
The Court of Appeals said the complaint had been filed well within the allowable period.
"There is no question that the original complaint was filed on May 31, 2004 and the amended complaint on Oct. 28, 2004... Since no new theory, cause of action, issues or demands were introduced in the amended complaint, the action [was] deemed to have commenced on the date the original complaint was filed," it added. — Ira P. Pedrasa, BusinessWorld
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, the court rejected the cigarette firm’s argument that the period within which the complainant had to file the suit had lapsed.
Officials of the cigarette company declined to comment.
Complainant Vincent P. Reyes has blamed Philip Morris for his lung cancer, claiming that the cigarette maker had enticed him to take up smoking.
The complainant earlier claimed he had started smoking at the age of 14 because of Philip Morris’ "barrage of television advertisements." After years of being hooked, he was diagnosed with lung cancer in October 2000.
The damage suit was filed on May 31, 2004. An amended complaint was filed on October 28 that year since the original had not been served on Philip Morris, which had transferred offices at the time.
The cigarette firm sought the dismissal of the case, arguing that the injury had been caused by fault, negligence or imprudence but without malice.
Under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, it added, cases such as this must be initiated within four years.
But based on television interviews given by Mr. Reyes, he had admitted having been diagnosed with cancer as early as 1999, the cigarette company said.
It added that the suit was filed beyond the four-year period prescribed by law.
The Makati court, however, found merit in the case by denying Philip Morris’ dismissal plea.
This led the company to seek an injunction before the appellate court, saying the lower court had not ruled on its argument.
In favoring the smoker, the appellate court rejected Philip Morris’ claim that the case had lapsed, as it refused to acknowledge the television interviews submitted to it by the firm.
"The foregoing statements in the interview are not clear and convincing and cannot prevail over the explicit allegation in the complaint that the private respondent [had been] diagnosed [with] have lung cancer in 2000," the court said.
It added that while it would have been wiser for the trial court to have given out a ruling on the issue of the case having lapsed, it had never abused its authority.
The Court of Appeals said the complaint had been filed well within the allowable period.
"There is no question that the original complaint was filed on May 31, 2004 and the amended complaint on Oct. 28, 2004... Since no new theory, cause of action, issues or demands were introduced in the amended complaint, the action [was] deemed to have commenced on the date the original complaint was filed," it added. — Ira P. Pedrasa, BusinessWorld
