HONDA v SAN DIEGO  Honda then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition and sought the

G.R. No. L – 22756 / MAR 18, 1966 / DIZON, J. / Modes of Judicial Review – Injunction as provisional annulment of Judge San Diego’s orders.
remedy / LTLimbaring
NATURE Certiorari and Prohibition
PETITIONERS Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, et al. ISSUES & RATIO.
RESPONDENTS Hon. Lourdes P. San Diego et. Al. 1. WON Honda’s petition for certiorari should be granted – YES because the
judge had no jurisdiction to issue the orders complained of.
SUMMARY. Hahn filed an application for the trademark “HM Honda.” Honda
opposed this saying that he owns the said trademark long before Hahn’s application.  A writ of injunction or of prohibition or of certiorari may be issued against a
Hahn filed a motion to dismiss Honda’s opposition for lack of capacity. The Patent court only by another court SUPERIOR IN RANK to the former
Office denied his motion so he filed a petition for certiorari with the CFI. CFI Judge
San Diego issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Philippine Patent  The law vests upon the Supreme Court the authority to review final Orders and
Office. SC held that the judge has no authority to issue such order. decisions of the Public Service Commission
o Iloilo v PSC: In the absence of a specific delegation of jurisdiction to the
DOCTRINE. A writ of injunction or of prohibition or of certiorari may be issued Court of First Instance to grant injunctive relief against orders of the Public
against a court only by another court SUPERIOR IN RANK to the former. The CFI Service Commission, it would appear that no court, other than the Supreme
and the Patent Office are of the same rank and category so no injunction can be Court, possesses such jurisdiction.
issued.  The Philippine Patent Office and the Public Service Commission are similarly
situated and they are of the same rank or category as Courts of First Instance.
FACTS. Consequently, no one of the later has jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction against
 Honda is the manufacturer of Honda motorcycles and is the owner of the them.
trademarks “HONDA” “HM” and “HM with wings.”
 Alfred Hahn had been importing Honda Motorcycles in the Philippines.  Also Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court and Section 33 of Republic Act No.
 Hahn filed with the Phil. Patent Office an application for the registration in his 166, as amended, provides that appeals from orders and decisions of the Director
name of the trademark “HM Honda” of the Patent Office must likewise be taken to Supreme Court.
 Honda opposed the application alleging that it was manufacturing and selling said
motorcycles for a long time. DECISION.
 The application for registration was set for hearing and during Honda’s Writ of preliminary injunction set aside.
presentation of evidence, counsel of Hahn for the first time questioned Honda’s
personality to appear before the Patent Office and prayed for the dismissal of the
case.
 The counsel’s motion was dismissed so Hahn filed a motion for reconsideration
(MR) alleging that Honda’s capacity to appear before the Patent Office was a
prejudicial question and that since it is not licensed to do business in the
Philippines, the Patent Office could not be said to have acquired jurisdiction over
its person.
 Hahn further instituted a petition for certiorari to annul the order denying his
motion to dismiss alleging that
o Registration with the Bureau of Commerce and a license from the Securities
and Exchange Commission is sine qua non to have capacity to become a party
“applicant or oppositor” to an inter partes proceeding in the Philippine Patent
Office
 Judge Lourdes San Diego issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining
the Director of Patents from extending further recognition to Honda’s
capacity.