G.R. No. 189669 - Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs. Romars International Gases Corp.

Petitioners Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation and Petron Corporation received reports that Romars International Gases Corporation was illegally refilling and distributing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders bearing Petron’s registered trademarks.
Petron engaged a paralegal investigation team which brought empty Shellane, Gasul, Total and Superkalan cylinders to Romars’ Camarines Sur facility; Romars’ employees refilled them without authorization.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), acting on petitioners’ request, conducted test buys and found stockpiles of Petron and Shellane cylinders at Romars’ warehouse and at a retail outlet (Edrich Enterprises).
Petitioners filed two applications for search warrants with the Regional Trial Court of Naga City (RTC-Naga) for violations of Sections 155.1 and 170 of R.A. No. 8293. The warrants were issued and served on October 23, 2002; items were seized thereafter.

On November 4, 2002, Romars moved to quash the warrants on grounds of no probable cause, lapse of time, third-party ownership, and retailer authorization. The RTC-Naga denied the motion on February 21, 2003.
On March 27, 2003, Romars filed a motion for reconsideration raising for the first time that the search warrant applications were filed in RTC-Naga instead of the proper RTC-Iriga City without stating “compelling reasons” as required by Rule 126, Sec. 2(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The RTC granted reconsideration on July 28, 2003 and quashed the warrants.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s quashal in a decision dated March 13, 2009; the CA denied reconsideration on September 14, 2009.
Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition, challenging (A) the CA’s holding that venue in a search warrant application is jurisdictional and (B) the CA’s view that the Omnibus Motion Rule does not apply to motions to quash such warrants.

Whether the CA erred in deeming the venue requirement for filing a search warrant application jurisdictional, thereby allowing Romars to raise lack of venue for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.
Whether the CA erred in holding that the Omnibus Motion Rule does not apply to motions to quash search warrants, permitting the late raising of venue objections.