G.R. No. 165306 - Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises

On March 14, 2003, Special Investigator Eliezer P. Salcedo of the NBI applied for Search Warrant No. 4044(03) before RTC-Quezon City, Branch 83, alleging that Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center possessed sporting goods copyrighted by Manly Sportwear Mfg., Inc. (MANLY).
On March 17, 2003, Judge Estrella T. Estrada found reasonable grounds that Sections 172 and 217 of RA No. 8293 were violated, and issued the warrant.

Respondents moved to quash and annul the warrant, arguing the goods were ordinary sporting articles not covered by Section 172 of RA 8293 and thus no probable cause existed.
On June 10, 2003, the trial court granted the motion, declaring the warrant null and void after finding that MANLY’s products were not original creations—identical articles were previously registered by others—and therefore not entitled to protection under RA 8293. Certificates of registration in MANLY’s name (2002) were later than competing registrations.

On August 11, 2003, the trial court denied MANLY’s motion for reconsideration. MANLY then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which on July 13, 2004, and in a September 15, 2004 resolution, denied relief for lack of merit. The CA held the trial court did not preempt final IP adjudication.
MANLY elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45, challenging solely whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in quashing the warrant on the ground that MANLY’s products were not original creations.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in upholding the trial court’s quashal of Search Warrant No. 4044(03) on the basis that MANLY’s sporting goods were not original creations protected under Section 172 of RA 8293.