Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

CASE DIGEST

Hon. Secretary of Health Alfredo Bengzon and National Drug Committee Director Catalina C.
Sanchez, petitioners vs Court of Appeals and Boie-Takeda Chemicals, respondents
(G.R. No. L-82568, 31 May 1988, 745 SCRA 161)
Ponente: Justice Grio-Aquino
Doctrine/s stated by the Supreme Court:
Remedial Law Provisional Remedies, Writ of Preliminary Injunction as ancillary or preventive
remedy: A writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preservative remedy may only be
resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests, and for no
other purpose, during the pendency of the principal action.
Here, the writ was issued to protect and preserve the rights or license of the private respondent
Boie-Takeda to market its product Danzen in the Philippines, which it has been doing for the
past 17 years (since 1970). Hence, the object of the writ is to preserve the status quo, or the last
actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. In the present case,
the status quo before the withdrawal order (that caused the controversy) is that Boie-Takedas
Danzen was registered and being sold in the country under proper license from the Bureau of
Food and Drugs (now Food and Drug Administration or FDA).
Type of Action/Appeal: Petitioners DOH Sec. Alfredo Bengzon and National Drug Committee
Director Catalina C. Sanchez filed petition for review on certiorari on the writ of preliminary
injunction issued on 3 March 1988 by the Tenth Division of Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No.
13859. They pray that the said writ be annulled and set aside and its enforcement temporarily
restrained during the pendency of the case. Respondent Boie-Takeda filed a motion to dismiss
the petition, and an opposition to the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Facts: The Philippine corporation Boie-Takeda manufactures, distributes, and sells drugs, one of
which is Danzen, a tablet containing OPE (anti-inflammatory proteolytic enzyme) serrapeptase
which it has been licensed to manufacture and sell since 1970 in the country.
Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) Director Catalina C. Sanchez issued BFAD Regulation No. 1
on 1 April 1987 with approval of Sec. of Health Alfredo Bengzon, which ordered that
preparations containing anti-inflammatory proteolytic enzymes should no longer be marketed in
the country, based on the US Food and Drug Commissioners decision dated 30 May 1985
(affirmed by US Court of Appeals in 1 April 1986) which determined that these drugs have not
/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law, A.Y. 2015-2016

been shown to be effective for use in controlling edema and inflammation associated with
medical procedures (surgical, dental, obstetrical), allergies and infections.
DOH and BFAD issued after a week BFAD Regulation No. 1-A dated 10 April 1987, which
included Boie-Takedas Danzen 5 mg. tablet containing 10,000 units of serratiopeptidase in its
list of banned pharmaceutical preparations.
Boie-Takeda appealed that withdrawal order to the Secretary of Health, who in turn, referred its
appeal to the National Drug Committee (NDC). On 1 February 1988, Sec. Bengzon informed
Boie-Takeda that the recall and cancellation of registration of the Danzen tablets was confirmed
by the said committee and that it was directed to discontinue marketing that product.
Boie-Takeda appealed the cancellation of registration of Danzen via petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction, where it prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be
issued to restrain the Health Secretary Alfredo Bengzon to enforce BFAD Regulation No. 1-A
pending the cases determination.
The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order and set the hearing for application of
preliminary injunction on 22 February 1988. On 3 March 1988, the Court of Appeals granted via
its resolution the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by Boie-Takeda.
Issues: W/N the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing writ of
preliminary injunction?
Held by the Supreme Court: The petition for certiorari and prohibition by the petitioner Sec. of
Health Alfredo Bengzon and National Drug Committee Director Catalina C. Sanchez is
DENIED, and the Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion
when it issued the writ of preliminary injunction to restrain them from implementing withdrawal
order (BFAD) Regulation 1-A.
A writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preservative remedy may only be resorted to
by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests, and for no other purpose,
during the pendency of the principal action.
Here, the writ was issued to protect and preserve the rights or license of the private respondent
Boie-Takeda to market its product Danzen in the Philippines, which it has been doing for the
past 17 years (since 1970). Hence, the object of the writ is to preserve the status quo, or the last
actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. In the present case,
the status quo before the withdrawal order (that caused the controversy) is that Boie-Takedas
/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law, A.Y. 2015-2016

Danzen was registered and being sold in the country under proper license from the Bureau of
Food and Drugs (now Food and Drug Administration or FDA).

/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law, A.Y. 2015-2016

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi