ASG Law

Tag: Distributorship Agreement

  • Understanding Corporate Liability and Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Philippines

    The Importance of Maintaining Corporate Integrity and the Consequences of Misrepresentation

    Total Petroleum Philippines Corporation v. Edgardo Lim and Tyreplus Industrial Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 203566, June 23, 2020

    Imagine a scenario where a business owner, aiming to expand their market reach, establishes multiple companies to distribute the same product in the same area. This might seem like a clever strategy, but what if it violates the terms of a distributorship agreement? The case of Total Petroleum Philippines Corporation against Edgardo Lim and Tyreplus Industrial Sales, Inc. serves as a stark reminder of the legal boundaries and consequences of such actions. It delves into the complexities of corporate liability and the principle of piercing the corporate veil, illustrating how a seemingly innocuous business decision can lead to significant legal repercussions.

    The core issue in this case revolves around a distributorship agreement between Total Petroleum and Tyreplus, which was allegedly breached when Tyreplus attempted to transfer its rights and obligations to another entity, Superpro Industrial Sales Corporation, without Total’s consent. This case not only highlights the importance of adhering to contractual terms but also underscores the personal liability that can befall corporate officers who act in bad faith.

    Legal Context: Corporate Liability and Piercing the Corporate Veil

    In the Philippines, the concept of corporate liability is grounded in the principle that a corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, directors, and officers. This separation is intended to protect individuals from personal liability for corporate debts and obligations. However, under certain circumstances, the courts may pierce the corporate veil, holding individuals personally accountable for corporate actions.

    The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is invoked when a corporation is used to perpetrate fraud, injustice, or to evade legal obligations. For instance, if a corporate officer misuses the corporate entity to commit wrongful acts, the veil may be pierced to hold that officer personally liable. The Supreme Court has established that to pierce the corporate veil, the wrongdoing must be proven clearly and convincingly.

    Key to this case is Article 9 of the distributorship agreement, which explicitly states that the contract is personal to the distributor and cannot be assigned without prior written approval. This provision reflects the principle of contractual non-transferability, which is crucial in maintaining the integrity of business agreements.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey from Distributorship to Dispute

    The narrative of this case begins with a distributorship agreement between Total Petroleum Philippines Corporation and Tyreplus Industrial Sales, Inc., signed on December 1, 1999. Under this agreement, Tyreplus was granted the non-exclusive and non-transferable authority to distribute Total’s petroleum products.

    Complications arose when Tyreplus, led by its President Edgardo Lim, attempted to change its corporate name to Superpro Industrial Sales Corporation following the resignation of its General Manager. Lim communicated this change to Total, assuring them that Superpro would assume all obligations of Tyreplus. However, Total later discovered that Superpro was a separate entity, not merely a name change, leading to the pre-termination of the distributorship agreement with Tyreplus.

    The procedural journey saw the case move from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, which initially ruled in favor of Total, to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that Total was estopped from pre-terminating the agreement with Tyreplus. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the CA’s decision, reinstating the RTC’s ruling with modifications.

    Key reasoning from the Supreme Court’s decision includes:

    “Estoppel arises when one, by his acts, representations, or admissions, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.”

    “To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations, two requisites must concur: (1) complainant must allege in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2) complainant must clearly and convincingly prove such unlawful acts, negligence or bad faith.”

    Practical Implications: Navigating Corporate Agreements and Personal Liability

    This ruling reinforces the sanctity of contractual agreements and the severe consequences of breaching them. Businesses must ensure that any changes to corporate structures or agreements are conducted transparently and with the consent of all parties involved. The decision also serves as a cautionary tale for corporate officers, highlighting the potential for personal liability when corporate entities are misused.

    For businesses, this case underscores the importance of clear communication and adherence to contractual terms. For individuals involved in corporate management, it emphasizes the need to act in good faith and to be aware of the potential personal repercussions of corporate actions.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always obtain written consent before transferring or assigning contractual obligations.
    • Corporate officers must act transparently and in good faith to avoid personal liability.
    • Understand the legal implications of corporate restructuring and ensure compliance with existing agreements.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is piercing the corporate veil?

    Piercing the corporate veil is a legal doctrine that allows courts to hold individuals personally liable for the actions of a corporation when it is used to perpetrate fraud or injustice.

    Can a corporate officer be held personally liable for corporate debts?

    Yes, if the officer is found to have acted in bad faith or with gross negligence, they can be held personally liable for corporate debts.

    What are the consequences of breaching a distributorship agreement?

    Breaching a distributorship agreement can lead to the termination of the contract, financial penalties, and potential legal action for damages.

    How can a business ensure compliance with contractual terms?

    Businesses should regularly review their contracts, seek legal advice before making changes, and maintain clear communication with all parties involved.

    What should corporate officers do to avoid personal liability?

    Corporate officers should act transparently, ensure compliance with legal and contractual obligations, and avoid using the corporate entity for personal gain or to evade responsibilities.

    ASG Law specializes in corporate law and contractual disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your business practices align with legal standards.

  • Navigating Distributorship Agreements: The Importance of Good Faith in Business Relations

    Good Faith is Paramount in the Exercise of Rights Under Distributorship Agreements

    Tocoms Philippines, Inc. v. Philips Electronics and Lighting, Inc., G.R. No. 214046, February 05, 2020

    Imagine investing years in building a business relationship, only to have it abruptly terminated without warning. This scenario is not uncommon in the world of distributorship agreements, where the stakes are high and the trust between parties is crucial. In the case of Tocoms Philippines, Inc. against Philips Electronics and Lighting, Inc., the Supreme Court of the Philippines tackled the intricate balance of rights and obligations in such agreements, emphasizing the critical role of good faith.

    The case centered on Tocoms, a distributor of Philips products, who found itself blindsided by the non-renewal of its distributorship agreement. Tocoms alleged that Philips acted in bad faith, causing significant financial and reputational damage. The central legal question was whether Tocoms’ complaint against Philips stated a cause of action, particularly under the principles of abuse of rights and damages under the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    Legal Context

    In Philippine jurisprudence, the concept of a cause of action is fundamental to the initiation of legal proceedings. According to Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is defined as “the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.” This concept is crucial in determining whether a case can proceed to trial.

    The case also delved into the principles of abuse of rights under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. Article 19 states that “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” This article sets a standard for behavior in business dealings, emphasizing the importance of good faith.

    Article 20 provides for damages when a person “contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another,” while Article 21 compensates for damages caused “in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.” These provisions are often invoked in cases where one party’s actions, though legally permissible, are executed in bad faith, causing harm to another.

    In everyday terms, these principles mean that even if a contract allows a party to terminate an agreement, the manner of termination must be fair and just. For instance, if a landlord legally evicts a tenant but does so with the intent to cause harm, the tenant may have a claim for damages under these provisions.

    Case Breakdown

    Tocoms Philippines, Inc. had been a distributor of Philips products since 2001, with the distributorship agreement being renewed annually. In the lead-up to 2013, Tocoms made significant investments and disclosures to Philips in anticipation of the agreement’s renewal. However, on January 2, 2013, Philips informed Tocoms that the agreement would not be renewed, leaving Tocoms in a state of shock and disbelief.

    Tocoms alleged that Philips’ actions were not only sudden but also malicious. They claimed that Philips had been selling products to a new distributor, Fabriano, at a lower price before the termination, which led to accusations of dishonest dealings against Tocoms. Furthermore, Philips demanded to buy back Tocoms’ inventory at significantly reduced prices, a move that Tocoms argued was unreasonable and oppressive.

    The procedural journey began with Tocoms filing a suit for damages and injunction against Philips in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Philips moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The RTC denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, leading Tocoms to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on whether the complaint stated a cause of action. The Court emphasized that in determining this, only the allegations in the complaint should be considered, unless evidence presented during a hearing on a preliminary injunction justifies a broader inquiry. The Court noted that:

    “If the foregoing allegations in Tocoms’ complaint are hypothetically admitted, these acts constitute bad faith on the part of respondent PELI in the exercise of its rights under the Distributorship Agreement, in violation of Article 19, and as punished by Article 21.”

    The Court further stated:

    “The legal concept of bad faith denotes a dishonest purpose, moral deviation, and a conscious commission of a wrong. It includes ‘a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.’”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, reinstating the case at the RTC level to allow Philips the opportunity to prove its good faith in the termination of the agreement.

    Practical Implications

    This ruling underscores the importance of good faith in business relationships, particularly in the context of distributorship agreements. Businesses must be cautious in exercising their contractual rights, ensuring that their actions do not harm their partners in a manner that could be considered bad faith.

    For businesses entering into distributorship agreements, it is advisable to include clear terms regarding termination and inventory buy-back to avoid disputes. Additionally, maintaining open communication and transparency can help mitigate the risk of allegations of bad faith.

    Key Lessons:

    • Good faith is a critical element in the exercise of contractual rights.
    • Businesses should document all interactions and agreements to demonstrate good faith in case of disputes.
    • Seeking legal advice before making significant decisions regarding distributorship agreements can prevent costly litigation.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What constitutes a cause of action in Philippine law?

    A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another, as defined in the Rules of Court. It must be evident from the complaint or initiatory pleading.

    How can a business prove good faith in terminating a contract?

    Businesses can demonstrate good faith by providing reasonable notice, offering fair terms for inventory buy-back, and maintaining transparent communication throughout the process.

    Can a party claim damages if a contract is terminated legally but in bad faith?

    Yes, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code, damages can be claimed if the termination, though legal, is executed in a manner that is unjust or contrary to good faith.

    What should businesses include in distributorship agreements to avoid disputes?

    Agreements should include clear terms on termination, notice periods, inventory handling, and dispute resolution mechanisms to minimize the risk of conflicts.

    How can ASG Law assist with distributorship agreements?

    ASG Law specializes in commercial law and can provide guidance on drafting, negotiating, and enforcing distributorship agreements. We can help ensure that your business practices align with legal standards and protect your interests.

    ASG Law specializes in commercial law and distributorship agreements. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Forum Shopping: Dismissal Based on Identical Claims and Parties

    The Supreme Court ruled that Leyte Development Company, Inc. (LDCI) engaged in forum shopping by filing two separate complaints involving the same core issue: the validity of the termination of its distributorship agreement with Isla LPG Corporation. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that while forum shopping existed, the initial case filed should proceed, as it more appropriately addressed the contractual validity and potential damages. This decision clarifies the application of the forum shopping doctrine and the priority of actions, ensuring that parties cannot pursue multiple legal avenues simultaneously for the same grievance.

    Double Dipping in Litigation: When is it Forum Shopping?

    This case arose from a dispute between Leyte Development Company, Inc. (LDCI) and Isla LPG Corporation after Isla terminated LDCI’s distributorship agreement. LDCI, feeling aggrieved, initially filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief, which was dismissed. Subsequently, LDCI filed two complaints: one in Makati (Civil Case No. 13-155) and another in Tacloban (Civil Case No. 2013-07-61), both contesting the termination. Isla LPG Corporation argued that LDCI was engaged in forum shopping, which is the act of repetitively availing oneself of judicial remedies in different courts based on the same facts, circumstances, and issues to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision.

    The central legal question was whether LDCI’s actions constituted forum shopping, warranting the dismissal of one of the cases. The Supreme Court had to determine if the elements of litis pendentia (a pending suit) were present, and if a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata (a matter already judged) in the other. The Court delved into the intricacies of forum shopping to ascertain whether LDCI improperly sought concurrent remedies for the same cause of action.

    The Supreme Court reiterated the tests for determining forum shopping, emphasizing the necessity of identifying parties, rights asserted, reliefs prayed for, and the impact of a judgment in one action on the other. The Court noted that forum shopping exists when the following elements are present:

    Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under consideration.

    Applying these principles, the Court found that LDCI’s actions met the criteria for forum shopping. First, there was an identity of parties or a community of interest, as both cases involved LDCI and the same core defendants—Isla LPG Corporation and its officers—sued for the same act of terminating the distributorship agreement. Second, there was an identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. Although LDCI attempted to distinguish the reliefs sought in the two cases, the Court found that both complaints stemmed from the alleged undue termination of the Distributorship Agreement and sought damages for lost business opportunities.

    To illustrate, the Court compared the reliefs sought in both complaints using a table:

    Civil Case No. 13-155
    Civil Case No. 2013-07-61
    1. Upon due notice and hearing, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued forthwith restraining and enjoining defendants, particularly defendants Kelly Manlangit, Mariano Labayen, Jr. and Ramon del Rosario, or any other persons acting for and on their behalf, from implementing any of the effects of the purported termination or cancellation of the LPG Distributorship Agreement, more specifically the designation and appointment of defendants Supreme Star Oil and Jimmy T. Yaokasin, Jr. as new dealer/s or distributor/s of SHELLANE and/or SOLANE LPG products, including any actual or indirect dealing and distribution of such products by any persons or entities (sic) acting as business partners, assignees, agents, successors­-in-interest or representatives of defendants in any of the defined territorial areas of the plaintiff in Southern Leyte, Tacloban City and the nearby areas including Biliran;
    1.Upon due notice and hearing, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued forthwith restraining and enjoining defendants, particularly defendants Brandon Briones and Nolan Supat or any other persons acting for and on their behalf, from implementing any of the effects of the purported termination or cancellation of  the LPG Distributorship Agreement in the defined territorial areas of plaintiff LEDECO; and specifically restraining and enjoining defendants Supreme Star Oil and Jimmy T. Yaokasin, Jr. as new dealer/s or distributor/s of SHELLANE and/or SOLANE LPG products, including any actual or indirect dealing and distribution of such products by any persons or entities (sic) acting as business partners, assignees, agents, successors­-in-interest or representatives of defendants in any of the defined territorial areas of the plaintiff in Southern Leyte, Tacloban City and the nearby areas including Biliran;
    2. After the necessary proceedings, judgment be rendered as follows –      

    i. directing defendants to immediately and solidarily pay or reimburse plaintiff of the goodwill appurtenant to the market it has preserved and further established in its territorial areas in the amount of not less than P36,000,000.00;

    ii. ordering both parties to duly and promptly settle all their respective accountabilities and liabilities in accordance with the provisions of the distributorship agreement and the prevailing business practices;

    iii. declaring the non-compete clause under Clause 15.7 as unreasonable, inapplicable and ineffective against plaintiff, and permitting plaintiff to engage in any business of selling, dealing, storing and/or distributing LPG other than bearing the brands SHELLANE or SOLANE in any area or territory;   

         

    iv. declaring plaintiff as entitled to be accordingly informed and furnished with the necessary documents regarding the sale of all shares of Pilipinas Shell in Shell Gas (LPG) Philippines, Inc. in favor of IP&G to verify the extent, if not the definite terms and conditions, of the assignment of “all or any part of the benefits of, or its rights, benefits and/or obligations under the LPG Distributorship Agreement”;

    v. ordering defendants to solidarily pay plaintiffs the amounts of not less than P3,000,000.00 as and by way of indemnification for lost business opportunities and profits; not less than P500,000.00 as and by way of exemplary damages, and not less than P500,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees, as well as the costs of suit.

    xxxx
    1. After the necessary proceedings, judgment be rendered as follows:   

         

    i. directing defendants to open their books and business records, and account for all the LPG sales and profits that should have accrued to plaintiff;
       

    ii. ordering defendants to solidarily pay plaintiffs the amounts of not less than P1,000,000.00 as and by way of indemnification for lost business opportunities and profits; not less than P2,500.00 as and by way of exemplary damages, and not less than P250,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; and

    iii. ordering defendants to solidarily pay the costs of suit.
       

    xxxx

       

    Third, the Court determined that any judgment in the Makati case would amount to res judicata in the Tacloban case, as both actions revolved around the validity of the termination of the Distributorship Agreement and the associated damages. The Supreme Court held that LDCI was indeed engaged in forum shopping. However, the Court also clarified that not all instances of forum shopping warrant the outright dismissal of all related cases. Instead, the Court applied the principle of qui prior est tempore, potior est jure, meaning that the first action filed should generally be retained.

    The Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule, such as when the first action was filed merely to pre-empt the later action or if it is not the more appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues. However, in this case, the Court found no evidence that the Makati case was filed to pre-empt the Tacloban case or that the latter was a more appropriate forum. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Makati case should proceed, as it was the first action filed and appropriately addressed the validity of the contract and potential damages. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and avoiding the duplication of legal efforts.

    This ruling offers crucial guidance on the application of the forum shopping doctrine. Litigants must carefully assess whether their actions might be construed as seeking multiple remedies for the same cause of action. The Court’s analysis provides a clear framework for determining when forum shopping exists and the consequences that may follow. By clarifying these principles, the Supreme Court aims to prevent abuse of the judicial process and promote efficiency in dispute resolution.

    FAQs

    What is the main issue in this case? The main issue is whether LDCI engaged in forum shopping by filing two separate complaints concerning the termination of its distributorship agreement with Isla LPG Corporation. The Court needed to determine if the elements of forum shopping were present and which case should proceed.
    What are the elements of forum shopping? The elements of forum shopping include: (a) identity of parties or those representing the same interests; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for based on the same facts; and (c) a judgment in one action amounting to res judicata in the other. All these elements must be present for forum shopping to exist.
    What is the meaning of litis pendentia? Litis pendentia refers to a pending suit. It is a condition where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
    What is the meaning of res judicata? Res judicata means “a matter already judged.” It prevents a party from relitigating issues that have been conclusively determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior case.
    What is the principle of qui prior est tempore, potior est jure? Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure translates to “he who is first in time is preferred in right.” In the context of this case, it means that the first action filed should generally be retained, unless there are compelling reasons to dismiss it.
    What is the anticipatory test in forum shopping? The anticipatory test is an exception to the rule of retaining the first-filed action. It applies when the first action was filed merely to pre-empt the later action or anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal.
    What is the more appropriate action test? The more appropriate action test is another exception to the rule of retaining the first-filed action. It applies when the first action is not the more appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.
    What was the Court’s ruling on LDCI’s actions? The Court ruled that LDCI engaged in forum shopping by filing two separate complaints involving the same core issue. However, the Court held that the first action filed (Makati case) should proceed, as it appropriately addressed the contractual validity and potential damages.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling? The practical implication is that litigants must carefully assess whether their actions might be construed as seeking multiple remedies for the same cause of action. Filing multiple cases on the same issue can lead to a finding of forum shopping and potential dismissal of one or more cases.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Isla LPG Corporation v. Leyte Development Company, Inc. provides essential clarification on the application of the forum shopping doctrine. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for litigants, emphasizing the need to carefully consider the potential implications of filing multiple cases and to adhere to established procedural rules to avoid the pitfalls of forum shopping. The decision promotes judicial efficiency and ensures that parties pursue their legal claims in a responsible and coordinated manner.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ISLA LPG CORPORATION VS. LEYTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., G.R. No. 220262, August 28, 2019

  • Independent Contractor vs. Labor-Only Contractor: Defining Employer Liability in Philippine Law

    In the Philippines, determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is crucial for assigning liability in labor disputes. The Supreme Court case of Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Puedan clarifies the distinction between legitimate independent contracting and labor-only contracting. This distinction dictates whether a company like Nestle can be held jointly liable for the obligations of its distributors towards the latter’s employees. The court emphasized that the key factor is whether the company exercises control over the means and methods by which the contractor performs its work.

    Beyond the Agreement: Unmasking Labor-Only Contracting in Nestle’s Distribution

    This case originated from a dispute involving Benny A. Puedan, Jr., and other employees (respondents) who claimed they were illegally dismissed by Ocho de Septiembre, Inc. (ODSI) and Nestle Philippines, Inc. (NPI). The respondents alleged that ODSI was a mere labor-only contractor for NPI, making NPI their true employer. They argued that NPI should be held liable for their separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees following their termination. The central legal question revolved around whether the Distributorship Agreement between ODSI and NPI constituted legitimate independent contracting or a prohibited labor-only arrangement. This determination would ultimately decide NPI’s liability to the respondents.

    ODSI maintained that it was an independent entity engaged in the distribution and marketing of goods, including NPI products. They presented their Distributorship Agreement with NPI, highlighting provisions that outlined ODSI’s responsibilities for managing its sales force, servicing outlets, and meeting sales targets. However, the respondents argued that NPI exercised significant control over ODSI’s operations, effectively making ODSI a mere extension of NPI’s business. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondents failed to prove they were NPI employees and that ODSI’s closure was due to legitimate business losses. Nevertheless, the LA ordered both ODSI and NPI to pay nominal damages for failing to provide the required 30-day notice prior to the closure.

    The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA’s decision, concluding that ODSI was indeed a labor-only contractor of NPI. The NLRC pointed to ODSI’s lack of substantial capitalization or investment, the direct relation of the respondents’ work to NPI’s core business, and ODSI’s dependence on NPI’s product supply. As a result, the NLRC held NPI jointly and severally liable with ODSI for the respondents’ separation pay, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees. NPI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that it was denied due process and that no employer-employee relationship existed between NPI and the respondents. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, finding that the Distributorship Agreement contained provisions indicative of a labor-only contracting arrangement and that NPI exercised control over ODSI’s business.

    The Supreme Court granted NPI’s petition, reversing the CA’s decision. The Court emphasized that the core issue was whether NPI controlled the means and methods by which ODSI conducted its business. After a thorough examination of the Distributorship Agreement, the Court concluded that the relationship between NPI and ODSI was that of a seller and buyer/re-seller, not a principal and a contractor. The Court noted that NPI sold its products to ODSI at discounted prices, and ODSI, in turn, re-sold these products to identified customers, adhering to agreed-upon quality standards. The reselling activities performed by the respondents were deemed to properly pertain to ODSI, whose business included buying, selling, distributing, and marketing goods.

    The Court distinguished between permissible guidelines and actual control, stating that the stipulations in the Distributorship Agreement did not dictate how ODSI should conduct its business as a distributor. Instead, they merely provided rules of conduct or guidelines toward achieving a mutually desired result: the sale of NPI products. The court referenced the case of Steelcase, Inc. v. Design International Selections, Inc., where it was held that imposing minimum standards on sales, marketing, finance, and operations is a sound business practice aimed at increasing sales and maximizing profits, provided it does not impinge on the distributor’s independence. Here, the court saw NPI’s requirements as reasonable business expectations rather than an attempt to control ODSI’s operations.

    The court determined that ODSI was not a labor-only contractor of NPI, absolving NPI of any liability for ODSI’s obligations to its employees. This ruling underscores the importance of carefully examining the true nature of business relationships to determine whether an entity is genuinely operating as an independent contractor or merely serving as a conduit for labor. This distinction is essential for determining the extent of a company’s liability in labor disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision provides crucial guidance on differentiating between legitimate business practices and prohibited labor arrangements, ensuring that companies are not unduly burdened with liabilities for entities over which they lack true control.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Ocho de Septiembre, Inc. (ODSI) was a labor-only contractor of Nestle Philippines, Inc. (NPI), making NPI liable for ODSI’s employees’ claims. The court needed to determine if NPI exercised control over the means and methods of ODSI’s business operations.
    What is a labor-only contractor? A labor-only contractor is an entity that does not have substantial capital or investment and whose employees perform tasks directly related to the principal business of the company. In such cases, the principal company is considered the true employer.
    What is an independent contractor? An independent contractor is an entity that carries on an independent business and undertakes to perform a specific job or service for another, according to its own manner and method, free from the control of the other party except as to the results of the work.
    What did the Labor Arbiter initially decide? The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that the respondents failed to prove they were NPI employees. However, the Labor Arbiter ordered ODSI and NPI to pay nominal damages for failing to give a 30-day notice before the company’s closure.
    How did the NLRC rule on the case? The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding ODSI to be a labor-only contractor of NPI. Consequently, the NLRC ordered NPI to be jointly and severally liable with ODSI for the respondents’ separation pay, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees.
    What was the Court of Appeals’ decision? The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, agreeing that the Distributorship Agreement between ODSI and NPI demonstrated a labor-only contracting arrangement. The CA also pointed out that NPI exercised control over ODSI’s business.
    What was the Supreme Court’s final ruling? The Supreme Court granted NPI’s petition, reversing the CA’s decision. The Court held that ODSI was not a labor-only contractor of NPI, as the relationship was that of a seller and buyer/re-seller, not a principal and a contractor.
    What is the significance of the “control test”? The “control test” is crucial in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. It focuses on whether the company controls the means and methods by which the worker performs their tasks, not just the results of the work.
    What evidence did the court consider in determining the nature of the relationship? The court examined the Distributorship Agreement between NPI and ODSI, focusing on provisions related to sales targets, marketing support, and product distribution. The court also considered whether ODSI had substantial capital and investment and whether the work performed by the respondents was directly related to NPI’s principal business.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Puedan provides valuable insights into the complexities of determining employer liability in contracting arrangements. By emphasizing the importance of the control test and carefully scrutinizing the true nature of business relationships, the Court has offered clearer guidance for companies and workers alike. Understanding these distinctions is essential for ensuring fair labor practices and protecting the rights of employees.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. BENNY A. PUEDAN, JR., ET AL., G.R. No. 220617, January 30, 2017

  • Trademark Rights: Prior Use vs. Registration in the Philippines

    In Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd., the Supreme Court affirmed that a mere distributor does not acquire ownership of a manufacturer’s trademark and cannot claim trademark infringement. This ruling underscores the importance of establishing true ownership and prior use of a trademark, rather than simply relying on registration. The decision clarifies that registration alone does not guarantee trademark ownership, and courts will consider evidence of prior use and the intent of parties as expressed in distributorship and assignment agreements.

    Who Owns the Name? A Battle Over Trademark Rights

    The heart of this case lies in a dispute over the trademarks “KENNEX” and “PRO-KENNEX.” Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. (SUPERIOR) claimed ownership based on its trademark registrations in the Philippines. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. (KUNNAN), however, argued that it was the original creator and owner of the trademarks, and that SUPERIOR was merely its distributor. The conflict arose after KUNNAN terminated its distributorship agreement with SUPERIOR and appointed Sports Concept and Distributor, Inc. (SPORTS CONCEPT) as its new distributor, leading SUPERIOR to file a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of SUPERIOR, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding that SUPERIOR had failed to establish its ownership of the trademarks. This CA decision hinged on several key pieces of evidence presented by KUNNAN, including the Distributorship Agreement and an Assignment Agreement between the parties. These agreements, the CA reasoned, demonstrated that SUPERIOR acknowledged KUNNAN as the true owner of the trademarks. The CA also took into account a letter from SUPERIOR identifying itself as a licensee and distributor of KUNNAN’s products.

    The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s assessment, emphasizing the significance of a related case concerning the cancellation of SUPERIOR’s trademark registrations. This “Registration Cancellation Case” had already determined that SUPERIOR was not the rightful owner of the trademarks and that its registrations were obtained fraudulently. The Supreme Court invoked the principle of res judicata, specifically conclusiveness of judgment, which prevents the re-litigation of facts and issues already decided in a prior case between the same parties. In this context, the prior ruling that SUPERIOR was not the owner of the trademarks was conclusive in the infringement case.

    The Court also clarified the requirements for establishing trademark infringement. As the Court articulated in McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.:

    To establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be proven: (1) the validity of plaintiff’s mark; (2) the plaintiff’s ownership of the mark; and (3) the use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in “likelihood of confusion.”

    In this case, SUPERIOR could not prove the second element—ownership of the mark—because its trademark registrations had been canceled and the issue of ownership had been definitively resolved against it in the Registration Cancellation Case. Even if the registration case were not a factor, the court emphasized that as a distributor, SUPERIOR had no right to claim ownership. As the Court noted:

    In the absence of any inequitable conduct on the part of the manufacturer, an exclusive distributor who employs the trademark of the manufacturer does not acquire proprietary rights of the manufacturer, and a registration of the trademark by the distributor as such belongs to the manufacturer, provided the fiduciary relationship does not terminate before application for registration is filed.

    Turning to the issue of unfair competition, the Supreme Court found that SUPERIOR had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that KUNNAN had attempted to pass off its goods as those of SUPERIOR or that KUNNAN acted in bad faith. The Court noted that KUNNAN had even published a notice informing the public that it was the owner of the trademarks and that SPORTS CONCEPT was its new distributor. In doing so, the court followed established law for unfair competition, with the definition of unfair competition arising from Section 29 of RA 166:

    Under Section 29 of RA 166, any person who employs deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he passes off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who commits any acts calculated to produce said result, is guilty of unfair competition.

    The Court acknowledged that while trademark infringement and unfair competition are related concepts, they are distinct causes of action. As the Court also articulated in McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., trademark infringement can occur without unfair competition when the infringer clearly identifies itself as the manufacturer, thereby preventing public deception. Here, KUNNAN’s notice served to prevent confusion, further undermining SUPERIOR’s claim of unfair competition.

    In the end, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that trademark rights are rooted in ownership and prior use, not merely in registration. Distributors must take care not to overstep their bounds and attempt to claim ownership of trademarks belonging to the manufacturers they represent. Moreover, the decision highlights the importance of resolving ownership disputes before pursuing infringement claims, as the outcome of an ownership determination can be conclusive in subsequent litigation.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. (SUPERIOR) could claim trademark infringement and unfair competition against Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. (KUNNAN) for the use of the KENNEX and PRO-KENNEX trademarks. This depended on whether SUPERIOR was the rightful owner of the trademarks or merely a distributor.
    Who was Kunnan Enterprises Ltd.? KUNNAN was a foreign corporation based in Taiwan that manufactured sportswear and sporting goods under the KENNEX and PRO-KENNEX trademarks. It had initially appointed SUPERIOR as its exclusive distributor in the Philippines before terminating the agreement and appointing a new distributor.
    What was the significance of the Distributorship Agreement? The Distributorship Agreement was a key piece of evidence because it contained clauses suggesting that SUPERIOR recognized KUNNAN as the true owner of the trademarks. The agreement outlined SUPERIOR’s role as a distributor and its obligation to assign the trademarks to KUNNAN, which was never fulfilled.
    What is res judicata and why was it important in this case? Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided in a prior case. In this case, the Supreme Court invoked res judicata because a prior case (the Registration Cancellation Case) had already determined that SUPERIOR was not the owner of the trademarks.
    What is required to prove trademark infringement in the Philippines? To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must show (1) the validity of its mark, (2) its ownership of the mark, and (3) that the infringer’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers. In this case, SUPERIOR failed to prove ownership.
    What is unfair competition and how does it differ from trademark infringement? Unfair competition involves passing off one’s goods or business as those of another to deceive the public. Unlike trademark infringement, unfair competition requires proof of intent to deceive and a likelihood of confusion about the source of the goods.
    Can a distributor register a manufacturer’s trademark in the Philippines? Generally, an exclusive distributor cannot register a manufacturer’s trademark in its own name unless the trademark has been validly assigned to it. The right to register a trademark is based on ownership, not merely on distribution rights.
    What was the outcome of the Registration Cancellation Case? The Registration Cancellation Case resulted in the cancellation of SUPERIOR’s trademark registrations for KENNEX and PRO-KENNEX. This decision was final and executory, meaning it could no longer be appealed, and it effectively stripped SUPERIOR of its claim to trademark ownership.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. serves as a reminder that trademark rights are fundamentally tied to ownership and prior use. Distributors must be careful not to overreach and assert rights they do not possess, and trademark owners must take steps to protect their brands by establishing clear ownership and actively enforcing their rights.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc., vs. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd., G.R. No. 169974, April 20, 2010

  • Abuse of Rights Doctrine: When Business Decisions are Protected Under the Law

    The Supreme Court ruled that a company’s decision to audit a distributor’s account, change payment terms, and not renew a distributorship agreement did not constitute an abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code. This decision clarifies that businesses have the right to protect their interests, even if such actions may negatively affect other parties, provided there is no malicious intent. The ruling emphasizes that exercising one’s rights for legitimate business reasons, as outlined in contractual agreements, does not automatically qualify as an abuse of rights.

    Tupperware Troubles: Did Dart Philippines Unfairly Treat Its Distributor?

    This case revolves around the distributorship agreement between Dart Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) and Spouses Francisco and Erlinda Calogcog (respondents). Dart Philippines decided not to renew the agreement, subjected the respondents’ account to an audit, and altered the payment terms to pre-paid basis only. Consequently, the Spouses Calogcog filed a complaint alleging abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code, seeking damages for the losses they allegedly incurred due to these actions.

    At the heart of this case is Article 19 of the Civil Code, which states that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. For abuse of right to be present, these three elements must exist: (1) the existence of a legal right or duty; (2) exercise of said right in bad faith; and (3) the sole intent to prejudice or injure another. In effect, exercising a right should be in accordance with the purpose it was established for, not excessive or unduly harsh, and free from the intention to inflict injury.

    The critical factor in determining abuse of right is the presence of malice or bad faith. Good faith is presumed, and it indicates an intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Bad faith, on the other hand, transcends poor judgment or simple negligence. It indicates a dishonest purpose, some moral failing, or a conscious wrongdoing motivated by ill will. Proving bad faith requires demonstrating an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm, which is essential for establishing liability under Article 19.

    The Supreme Court analyzed the facts to determine whether Dart Philippines acted in bad faith. The company had legitimate concerns about the accuracy of sales reports submitted by the Spouses Calogcog and their compliance with promotional campaign rules. Dart Philippines informed the respondents that it would not be renewing their agreement citing, several violations. As evidence, Dart Philippines showed reports containing false statements about the sales performance. Spouses Calogcog even made a handwritten promise to correct these violations and comply with the terms of the agreement.

    Following these issues, Dart Philippines initiated an audit of the respondents’ account. When the spouses objected to a second audit, Dart Philippines altered the payment terms. Notably, the change to pre-paid was only implemented during the final month of the distributorship agreement. The court reasoned that Dart Philippines had valid reasons for its actions, primarily to protect its business interests.

    The court determined that there was an absence of any malicious intention to harm the respondents. It held that legitimate business interests supported Dart Philippines’ decision to audit, modify payment terms, and decline renewal of the agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that contractual rights must be respected. The court stated that the exercise of these rights does not constitute abuse of rights when it is not impelled by evil motives and is in line with the agreement terms. Without proving malice or intent to injure, a claim based on Article 19 of the Civil Code cannot succeed and must be dismissed.

    Because Dart Philippines was found not to have abused its rights, the Court stated that it should not be liable for the losses sustained by the respondents. The court acknowledges that there are damages suffered from acts that do not amount to a legal wrong, a principle referred to as damnum absque injuria. Because no legal wrong was committed, there can be no remedy to any damage caused by Dart Philippines, with one exception.

    Dart Philippines was still ordered to pay for salaries of internal auditors since it was Dart who contracted their services and since Dart Philippines never questioned this reimbursement. It was the only amount awarded to Spouses Calogcog.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Dart Philippines abused its rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code when it decided not to renew the distributorship agreement, audited the respondent’s account, and altered payment terms. The court looked into whether the actions were justified, or if they were motivated by malice.
    What is Article 19 of the Civil Code about? Article 19 of the Civil Code states that every person must, in the exercise of their rights and duties, act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith. It’s essentially a rule against abusing one’s legal rights to harm others.
    What does it mean to exercise a right in bad faith? Exercising a right in bad faith means using your rights with a dishonest purpose or with the intent to harm or prejudice another party. It goes beyond simple negligence and suggests a malicious motive.
    What is the meaning of damnum absque injuria? Damnum absque injuria refers to damage or loss that occurs without any legal wrong being committed. In such cases, the injured party is not entitled to compensation, as there is no legal basis for a claim.
    What evidence did Dart Philippines present to justify its actions? Dart Philippines presented evidence of discrepancies in the sales reports submitted by the respondents, showing inaccurate reporting and violations of company policies. It indicated a legitimate business reason for its actions.
    How did the Supreme Court apply Article 19 to the facts of the case? The Court found that Dart Philippines had legitimate business reasons for its actions, primarily to protect its own interests and address concerns about the respondent’s compliance with the agreement. Therefore, Article 19 did not apply.
    What amount was Dart required to reimburse the Spouses? Dart Philippines was only required to reimburse the spouses P23,500.17 with interest at 12% per annum computed from the date of filing of the original complaint.
    What did the dissenting opinion concern? The dissenting opinion argued that the interest rate should have been 6% instead of 12% as a payment on money due is not of the nature of a forbearance of money, and therefore does not fall under 12% rate.

    The decision emphasizes that while businesses must act in good faith, they are also entitled to protect their interests within the bounds of contractual agreements. This ruling offers clarity on the application of Article 19 of the Civil Code in commercial contexts, assuring businesses that reasonable actions taken to safeguard their operations will not automatically be deemed an abuse of rights.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Spouses Calogcog, G.R. No. 149241, August 24, 2009

  • Breach of Contract: Proving Damages and Termination Rights in Distributorship Agreements

    Burden of Proof in Contract Disputes: You Must Prove Damages to Claim Them

    TLDR: This case underscores the crucial importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims of breach of contract and damages. A party cannot simply allege a breach or financial loss; they must present concrete proof, such as signed invoices, delivery receipts, or expert testimony, to substantiate their claims. Without this evidence, the court will likely rule against them, regardless of the apparent merits of their case.

    G.R. NO. 150780, May 05, 2006

    Introduction

    Imagine your business relies on a steady supply of goods from a distributor. Suddenly, the supply dries up, and your business suffers. Can you sue for damages? Absolutely. But to win, you must prove the distributor breached your agreement and that you suffered actual losses as a result. This case highlights the challenges in proving breach of contract and the importance of keeping meticulous records.

    In Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. FY Sons, Incorporated, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute arising from a terminated distributorship agreement. The central legal question was whether Nestle validly terminated the agreement and whether FY Sons was entitled to damages for alleged breaches. The outcome hinged on the evidence presented by both sides, especially concerning unpaid accounts and alleged violations of the distributorship agreement.

    Legal Context: The Essentials of Contract Law and Evidence

    At the heart of this case lies the principle of reciprocal obligations in contracts, as outlined in Article 1191 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This provision states that in reciprocal obligations, the injured party may choose between fulfillment or rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. However, the right to rescind or claim damages is contingent upon proving a breach of contract.

    Crucially, the burden of proof rests on the party alleging the breach. This means they must present credible evidence to convince the court that the other party failed to fulfill their contractual obligations. In the context of unpaid accounts, this typically involves presenting invoices, delivery receipts, and accounting records.

    Relevant Legal Provisions:

    • Article 1191 of the Civil Code: “The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.”
    • Rule 130, Section 43 of the Rules of Court (Entries in the Course of Business): “Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.”

    Case Breakdown: Nestle vs. FY Sons – A Distributorship Dispute

    The story begins with a distributorship agreement between Nestle Philippines (petitioner) and FY Sons (respondent), where FY Sons would distribute Nestle products in specific areas. Over time, disputes arose, including fines imposed on FY Sons for allegedly violating the agreement by selling to unauthorized retailers.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    1. 1988-1990: Nestle and FY Sons enter into and renew a distributorship agreement.
    2. July 1990: Nestle fines FY Sons P20,000 for allegedly selling to an unauthorized retailer.
    3. September 1990: Nestle imposes another fine of P40,000 for a similar violation, which FY Sons refuses to pay.
    4. October 1990: FY Sons complains about Nestle’s breaches of the agreement.
    5. November 1990: Nestle terminates the agreement, alleging outstanding accounts of P995,319.81 and applies a P500,000 time deposit as partial payment.
    6. FY Sons sues Nestle: FY Sons files a complaint for damages, alleging bad faith and breach of contract.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of FY Sons, finding that Nestle had indeed breached the agreement. Nestle appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision with some modifications. The CA also emphasized the failure of Nestle to prove FY Sons’ alleged outstanding obligation.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of competent evidence. The Court highlighted Nestle’s failure to substantiate its claim that FY Sons had unpaid accounts:

    • “Petitioner’s contention has no merit. The provision does not apply to this case because it does not involve entries made in the course of business. Rayos testified on a statement of account she prepared on the basis of invoices and delivery orders which she, however, knew nothing about.”
    • “Having generated these documents, petitioner could have easily fabricated them. Petitioner’s failure to present any competent witness to identify the signatures and other information in those invoices and delivery orders cast doubt on their veracity.”

    The Court found that Nestle had not presented sufficient evidence to prove the alleged unpaid accounts, making the termination of the agreement unjustified. As a result, FY Sons was entitled to damages for Nestle’s breach of contract.

    Practical Implications: Lessons for Businesses

    This case offers several important lessons for businesses involved in distributorship or similar agreements:

    • Document Everything: Maintain meticulous records of all transactions, including invoices, delivery receipts, and communications. Ensure these documents are properly signed and dated.
    • Witness Testimony is Crucial: Be prepared to present witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts in dispute. Relying on hearsay or documents without proper authentication can be fatal to your case.
    • Understand Your Contract: Familiarize yourself with the terms of your agreements and ensure you can fulfill your obligations. If you anticipate difficulties, communicate with the other party and seek legal advice.

    Key Lessons:

    • Burden of Proof: The party alleging a breach of contract must prove it with credible evidence.
    • Competent Evidence: Hearsay evidence or documents without proper authentication are generally inadmissible.
    • Good Faith: Act in good faith and communicate with the other party to resolve disputes before resorting to termination.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a distributorship agreement?

    A: A distributorship agreement is a contract where one party (the supplier) grants another party (the distributor) the right to sell and distribute its products within a specified territory.

    Q: What constitutes a breach of contract?

    A: A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill its obligations as outlined in the agreement. This can include failure to deliver goods, failure to pay on time, or violation of exclusivity clauses.

    Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove damages in a breach of contract case?

    A: To prove damages, you need evidence such as financial records, lost profits calculations, expert testimony, and any other documentation that demonstrates the financial harm you suffered as a result of the breach.

    Q: Can a contract be terminated if one party fails to pay on time?

    A: It depends on the terms of the contract. Many contracts include clauses that allow for termination if payment is not made within a specified timeframe. However, the party seeking to terminate must still act in good faith and follow any required procedures.

    Q: What is hearsay evidence, and why is it generally inadmissible in court?

    A: Hearsay evidence is testimony or documents that are based on information received from someone else, rather than on personal knowledge. It’s generally inadmissible because the person who provided the information is not available to be cross-examined.

    Q: What are actual damages?

    A: Actual damages are damages that compensate the injured party for the actual losses they suffered as a direct result of the breach of contract. These can include lost profits, expenses incurred, and other financial losses.

    ASG Law specializes in contract law and commercial litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.