Case Digest (G.R. No. 213400)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 213400)
Facts:
Elidad Kho and Violeta Kho v. Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213400, August 04, 2021, decided by the Supreme Court Second Division on April 22, 2024, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Elidad Kho and Violeta Kho were criminally charged with Unfair Competition by private complainant Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. after the City Prosecutor of Manila issued a Resolution on May 31, 2000 recommending filing of an Information. The Information, filed before RTC Branch 24 as Crim. Case No. 00-183261, alleged that petitioners sold a medicated facial cream in a pink oval container bearing the trademark “Chin Chun Su,” such as to deceive the public and pass off their product as that of Summerville.
The parties sought administrative review at the Department of Justice. The DOJ initially affirmed the City Prosecutor’s Resolution, but on reconsideration recalled that endorsement for further review; later, on September 28, 2001 the DOJ dismissed the complaint, which prompted the prosecution to move to withdraw the Information. RTC Branch 24 issued an Order on October 24, 2001 withdrawing the Information; Summerville moved for reconsideration. On August 21, 2002 RTC Branch 24 held that refiling would constitute double jeopardy. On September 17, 2002 the DOJ granted Summerville’s motion for reconsideration and directed the City Prosecutor to file the appropriate Information; Summerville so informed the RTC, which on April 2, 2003 reiterated that revival was barred by double jeopardy.
Summerville sought certiorari relief before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed its petition. This Court, in G.R. No. 163741 (Resolution dated August 7, 2007), granted due course, annulled the CA decision and the RTC Branch 24 orders, and remanded the case to the RTC to independently evaluate whether probable cause existed, expressly holding that double jeopardy had not yet attached. Upon remand the case was raffled to RTC Branch 46.
RTC Branch 46, after an independent assessment, issued an Order dated July 21, 2010 finding no probable cause to hold petitioners for trial and releasing their bond; its denial of Summerville’s motion for reconsideration followed on November 18, 2010. Summerville filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 117835), which granted the petition in a Decision dated October 1, 2013, set aside the RTC’s July 21 and November 18, 2010 Orders, and directed reinstatement of the Information under Section 168.3(a) of R.A. No. 8293; the CA denied reconsideration on June 30, 2014. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which is the subject of this decision.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Regional Trial Court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in finding lack of probable cause against petitioners?
- Did the Court of Appeals act beyond the proper scope of certiorari relief by correcting alleged errors of judgment of the trial court?
- Did the Court of Appeals’ directive to reinstate the Information and proceed de novo violate petitioners’ right against double jeopardy?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)