G.R. No. 188493 - Torreon vs. Aparra, Jr.

Petitioners: Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Systems Incorporated, both U.S.-based corporations owning copyrights and trademarks of various software products, including Microsoft Windows and Office suites, and Adobe software such as Acrobat and Photoshop.
Respondents: Samir Farajallah, Virgilio D.C. Herce, Rachel P. Follosco, Jesusito G. Morallos, and Ma. Geraldine S. Garcia, directors and officers of New Fields (Asia Pacific), Inc., a domestic corporation located in Pasig City, Philippines.

In September 2009, petitioners received information that New Fields was unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed versions of Microsoft and Adobe software.
Petitioners hired Orion Support, Inc. (OSI) to verify this tip. Two OSI Market Researchers, Norma L. Serrano and Michael A. Moradoz, trained to detect unauthorized copies, investigated.
On March 17, 2010, petitioners filed a letter-complaint with the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), assigned to Police Senior Inspector Ernesto V. Padilla.
On March 26, 2010, Padilla, Serrano, and Moradoz visited New Fields’ office, used two computers under a business pretext, and documented software and product identification numbers (Product IDs) installed on those computers.
Observations revealed that two computers used common Product IDs for Microsoft Windows XP Pro and Microsoft Office Word 2007, indicating unlicensed copying since each software license should be unique unless covered by an Open License Agreement, which New Fields did not have.
Similar observations were made regarding identical serial numbers for Adobe software across computers. New Fields had about 90 computers with Microsoft software without Certificates of Authenticity.
Petitioners subsequently issued certifications confirming that they had not authorized New Fields to use, copy, or reproduce their software.

On May 20, 2010, Police Senior Inspector Padilla filed an application for two search warrants (Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913) before Judge Amor Reyes of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila. The warrants were issued the same day.
Warrants were served on May 24, 2010. New Fields employees witnessed the search. Seized items included 17 CD installers and 83 computers containing unauthorized copies of Microsoft and Adobe software.

On June 6, 2010, New Fields filed a motion to quash one of the warrants (No. 10-15912), received by petitioners only one day before the scheduled hearing, contrary to the three-day notice rule.
Petitioners filed a Comment/Opposition on June 21, 2010, arguing the motion was null due to non-compliance with the mandatory three-day notice rule.
On June 29, 2010, the RTC granted the motion, quashing both search warrants and ordering the return of seized items. The RTC cited failure of petitioners to identify which specific computers contained pirated software and noted no criminal charge was filed despite the items being held for weeks.
Petitioners received the order on July 8, 2010, and the items were returned accordingly.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Status Quo Order, asserting the order was not immediately executory and indicating intent to file a motion for reconsideration. Respondents moved to expunge this motion due to alleged violation of the three-day notice rule.
The RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on August 27, 2010.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming grave abuse of discretion in quashing the warrants despite existence of probable cause and non-compliance with the three-day notice rule.

The CA denied petitioners’ certiorari petition, ruling that although the three-day notice rule was not strictly observed, the petitioners were effectively given their day in court when allowed to comment on the motion to quash.
The CA upheld the RTC’s orders quashing the search warrants and releasing the seized items.

Whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in quashing Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913 despite the existence of probable cause and non-compliance with the three-day notice rule.
Whether the search warrants issued were valid and supported by probable cause based on personal knowledge of the applicant and witnesses.
Whether the three-day notice rule for motions to quash warrants must be strictly complied with in this case.