- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 28
- Topic
- Unfair competition
- Status
- In force
- Book
- Preliminary Title
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 2 Human Relations (n)
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
ARTICLE 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.
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
A person who suffers damage because a rival uses force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or other unjust, oppressive, or high-handed methods in agriculture, commerce, industry, or labor may sue for that harm. It gives victims of unfair competition a civil right to recover damages from the wrongdoer.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Key points
Article 28 creates a right of action for unfair competition in agricultural, commercial, or industrial enterprises, or in labor, carried out through force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or any other unjust, oppressive, or highhanded method.
Unlike intellectual-property unfair-competition rules, Article 28 addresses unfair methods of competition generally: a competitor injured by such conduct may recover damages. It sits within the human-relations chapter and is read with Articles 19, 20, and 21.
Article 28 is distinct from unfair competition as an intellectual-property offense, which concerns passing off goods as those of another; here the wrong is the use of unjust, oppressive, or highhanded methods to compete, and the methods listed are illustrative rather than exclusive. The injured competitor's remedy is an action for damages, which may be combined with the other reliefs available under the human-relations articles. The provision protects the right to engage in honest competition in agriculture, commerce, industry, and labor. Because the wrong lies in the unfair method rather than in confusion of goods, the article reaches conduct such as coercion, intimidation, deceit, and machination used to drive out or undercut a competitor, and it sits within the same human-relations chapter as Articles 19, 20, and 21, which supply the broader standards of good faith and abuse of rights against which the conduct is measured.
Cases applying this article
- Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines v. Spouses Jose R. Bernardo G.R. No. 190667
- Purita S. Mapa v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122308
- Augusto Benedicto Santos Iii v. Northwest Orient Airlines G.R. No. 101538