G.R. No. 133944 - Perez vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner: Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc., a duly-registered domestic corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Levi Strauss & Co. (a Delaware, USA company).
Respondent: Tony Lim, a.k.a. Antonio Guevarra, doing business under Vogue Traders Clothing Company, allegedly involved in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of garments under the brand “LIVE’s.”

In 1972, Levi Strauss & Co. granted Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. a non-exclusive license to use its registered trademarks and trade names for manufacturing and selling garment products in the Philippines.
The petitioner is the sole company with authority to manufacture, distribute, and sell goods bearing the “LEVI’s” trademarks, which have been registered in over 130 countries and used in the Philippines since 1946.

In 1995, petitioner lodged a complaint before the Inter-Agency Committee on Intellectual Property Rights alleging that an establishment in Metro Manila was manufacturing garments with colorable imitations of its registered trademarks.
Surveillance was conducted at respondent’s premises after which search warrants were served by the PNP Criminal Investigation Unit, resulting in the seizure of several items purportedly evidencing the infringing use.
The Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation Command filed a complaint against respondent before the DOJ for unfair competition, alleging that a “confusing similarity” existed between petitioner’s LEVI’s jeans and respondent’s LIVE’s products.

The investigating prosecutor held the discretion to file an information if there was probable cause, but also had the duty to dismiss the case if the evidence was insufficient.
The initial recommendation by Prosecution Attorney Florencio D. Dela Cruz was to dismiss the complaint, a recommendation approved by DOJ Secretary Guingona on January 9, 1998, on the basis that there was no evidence that the public was actually deceived.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, submitting evidentiary results from a consumer survey comparing the products.
Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello III reversed the earlier decision on June 5, 1998, directing that an information for unfair competition be filed against respondent.
Subsequently, respondent filed his own motion for reconsideration. On May 7, 1999, new DOJ Secretary Serafin Cuevas granted respondent’s motion and ordered the dismissal of the charges.

Dissatisfied with the DOJ’s fluctuating rulings, petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CA.
In its decision dated October 17, 2003, the CA affirmed the dismissal of the unfair competition complaint, noting that similarities between the products were either insufficient or mitigated by differences in design, packaging, and other distinguishing factors.
The CA also emphasized that confusion must be assessed at the point of sale and that the mere resemblance does not conclusively prove intent to deceive.

A central issue in the case is the proper mode of appeal. The petitioner’s use of a petition for review under Rule 43, instead of the appropriate petition for certiorari under Rule 65, is heavily critiqued.
The case highlights the limited scope of judicial review over the executive branch’s determination of probable cause and the inherent discretionary power of the prosecutor and the DOJ.

Whether the CA erred in requiring actual confusion and direct evidence of intent to deceive as necessary elements to establish unfair competition.
Whether the CA committed an error by ruling that respondent’s LIVE’s jeans do not unfairly compete with petitioner’s LEVI’s jeans, given the alleged imitation of multiple trademark elements.
Whether the CA improperly disregarded the evidentiary support from a scientifically conducted market survey and the expert witness’s affidavit showing that respondent’s products were, in fact, being confused with petitioner’s.
Whether the limitation of the confusion inquiry strictly to the point of sale was an erroneous application of the law.
Whether the petitioner erred in utilizing a petition for review under Rule 43 instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the DOJ resolutions regarding the existence of probable cause.