Red Bull dispute not over; justice asked to inhibit

MANILA, Philippines - The Energy and Food Drinks Inc. (EFD), local exclusive distributor of the popular beverage Red Bull  has warned that the legal disputes between the two companies are not yet over.

The firm explained that it still has a live exclusive contract with TC Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (makers of Red Bull in Thailand) and that any distribution of the Red Bull energy drink locally would be a violation of the agreement.

EFD issued this warning following a recent report that TC Pharmaceutical has assigned a new distributor/importer in the country.

This new agreement came on the heels of a Court of Appeals (CA) decision that reportedly allowed TC Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. to choose its own distributor in the country.

The decision penned by CA Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier junked the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 217 Judge Santiago M. Arenas, preventing TC Pharmaceutical from choosing a new Red Bull distributor in the country.

The decision of the Court of Appeals did not nullify our agreement and Red Bull is not free to choose a different distributor. The issue is still pending litigation, said Rodrigo D. Sta. Ana, counsel for Energy and Food Drinks, Inc. In fact, the CA decision directed the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to proceed with the case, he added.

Sta. Ana said that EFD has filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals to take issue with certain findings that merits of the case still being tried with the trial court of Quezon City have been prejudged.

Lazaro-Javier ruled that EFD had admitted that it was remiss in its obligations under the distributorship agreement. It was also alleged that EFD reduced its marketing efforts for Red Bull.

EFD disputed the finding, saying that it in fact catapulted Red Bull to become the leading brand in the Philippines. EFD has also filed a motion with the Court of Appeals seeking the inhibition of Justice Lazaro-Javier on account of her prejudgment of the case.

“Our lawyers have pointed out that Justice Lazaro-Javier decided the case hastily. Records showed the case was originally raffled to Justice Fernanda L. Peralta of 14th Division.

However, on Aug. 23, 2011, the case was transferred to Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier of the 4th Division. On Sept. 16, 2011 or only three weeks after, Justice Lazaro-Javier made certain findings of fact based on the evidence submitted to the trial court which required more than a year to present. She should have given it more time and circumspection,” the EFD stressed in a statement.