Case Digest (G.R. No. 188526)
Facts:
Century Chinese Medicine Co., et al. v. People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau, G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are several drugstore operators (collectively, petitioners) from whom NBI agents executed search warrants for alleged sales of counterfeit papaya whitening soaps; Ling Na Lau (respondent) is the registered owner and distributor of the trademark TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF and sought NBI assistance to investigate and stop the sale of counterfeit products. Respondent’s representative, Ping Na Lau, complained to the NBI and provided samples and a certification that soaps purchased from several drugstores were counterfeit. NBI Agent Joseph G. Furing and a witness conducted test buys on November 9–10, 2005 and submitted affidavits recounting purchases, observations of commercial quantities displayed for sale, and that the purchased items were examined and certified counterfeit.
On November 21, 2005 Agent Furing applied for search warrants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 143, Makati City, alleging violations of Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code). After personal examination under oath of the applicant and witnesses, the RTC issued Search Warrants Nos. 05-030, 05-033, 05-038, 05-022, 05-023, 05-025, 05-042 and 05-043 on November 23, 2005. The NBI executed the warrants and filed a Consolidated Return on December 5, 2005.
Petitioners moved to quash the warrants arguing, among others, forum shopping and that Benjamin Yu (Yu) — not respondent — was the rightful owner/distributor of an allegedly similar trademark and that a prejudicial question existed in Civil Case No. Q-05-54747 (Zenna Chemical Industry v. Ling Na Lau, et al.) pending in Branch 93, RTC Quezon City. Respondent opposed and during the RTC proceedings submitted an IPO Order approving a compromise agreement in IPV Case No. 10-2005-00001 in which Yu and others acknowledged respondent’s exclusive right over TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF and undertook to cease use, withdraw products, and pay liquidated damages for breach.
On September 25, 2006 the RTC (Branch 143, Makati) granted petitioners’ Motion to Quash, holding the warrants lacked probable cause and that prejudicial questions and parallel proceedings before the IPO and RTC Quezon City rendered the warrants improper; it ordered return of seized items. The RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2007. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On March 31, 2009 the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 88952 reversed the RTC, set aside the RTC’s March 7, 2007 order, and held the warrants were issued in anticipation of criminal prosecutions under Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of RA 8293, thus governed by Rule 126 of the Rules of Court; the CA found probable cause, that the civil actions cited by petitioners had been dismissed or resolved (including IPO injunctions and a compromise agreement), and that respondent, as registered owner, had the authority to seek NBI assistance. Petitioners’ motion for reconside...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC’s quashal of the search warrants?
- Were the search warrants governed by Rule 126 (criminal search and seizure) rather than the A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC Rules on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights?
- Was there probable cause to issue the search warrants against petitioners for violations of Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of RA 8293?
- Was the seizure of the merchandise excessive such that only samples should have been re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)