Can I sue a competitor who uses force, intimidation or deceit against my business?

The law draws a line between competing and cheating

Competition itself is lawful and healthy; the law protects it, not shields anyone from it. What Article 28 targets is competition pursued by foul means. It provides that unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. The distinction is between winning customers by being better, which you must simply endure, and injuring a rival through wrongful methods, which the law will redress. A competitor is free to outsell you; he is not free to attack you by the means the article lists.

What kinds of conduct it reaches

The article names force, intimidation, deceit and machination, and then sweeps in any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method. That closing phrase is deliberately broad. It means the list is illustrative, not exhaustive: threatening your suppliers, spreading falsehoods to steal your customers, sabotage, coercion of your workers, or scheming designed to cripple your enterprise can all fall within it, even if they do not fit one of the named labels exactly. The unifying idea is a method that is unjust or oppressive rather than honest rivalry. The broad wording keeps wrongdoers from escaping simply because their particular tactic was not specifically foreseen.

You must actually suffer damage

The right of action belongs to the person who thereby suffers damage. Two things follow. First, the wrongful method must be linked to harm you actually sustained, lost sales, lost customers, added costs, injury to your business standing, and you should be able to show that damage and connect it to the competitor's conduct. Second, the remedy is compensatory: it is aimed at making good the loss the unfair method caused you. A competitor's bad behaviour that caused you no real damage gives you little to recover, so evidence of both the wrongful means and the resulting loss is what a claim under this article rests on.

How it fits with other remedies

Article 28 is a general civil remedy against unfair competition, and it can operate alongside other protections the law provides for businesses, including specific competition and intellectual-property regimes and, depending on the conduct, criminal exposure for the wrongdoer. Which combination fits depends on exactly what the competitor did. Because these claims turn heavily on proof, documenting the wrongful acts and your losses as they happen, communications, incidents, financial impact, is the most useful thing you can do. If a rival is using force or deceit against you, it is worth having the specific conduct assessed to see which remedies give you the strongest footing.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Willaware Products Corporation vs. Jesichris Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 195549, September 3, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Francisco S. Tatad vs. Department of Energy, et al, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Gma Network, Inc. and Citynet Network Marketing and Productions, Inc. vs. Abc Development (ABC), Media Prima Berhad, and Mpb Primedia, Inc, G.R. No. 205986, January 11, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Sps. Jose R. Bernardo and Lilibeth R. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190667, November 7, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 28 — Unfair Competition