Text of the provision
Art. 28. 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.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
This creates a civil remedy for unfair competition in business or labor. Competition is lawful and encouraged — but not when waged through force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or other unjust, oppressive or high-handed methods. A competitor (or worker) who suffers damage from such tactics may sue. It is broader than the criminal/IP concept of unfair competition, reaching any dishonest or coercive interference with trade.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 19 — the good-faith standard.
- Article 20 — damage caused contrary to law.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Allan M. Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union, namely, Eduardo B. Borela, et al, G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.