Case Digest (G.R. No. 149907)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 149907)
Facts:
Roma Drug and Romeo Rodriguez, as proprietor of Roma Drug v. The Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, The Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, Bureau of Food & Drugs (BFAD) and Glaxo SmithKline, G.R. No. 149907, April 16, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.On 14 August 2000, National Bureau of Investigation operatives together with inspectors of the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) executed Search Warrant No. 00-43 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City, and raided Roma Drug, a sole proprietorship owned by petitioner Romeo Rodriguez. The raiding team seized several imported pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., Augmentin, Orbenin, Amoxil, Ampiclox) that had been imported directly from abroad and not purchased through the Philippine distributor of the brand-owner. Roma Drug was one of several retail outlets raided at the request of SmithKline Beecham Research Limited; the local distributor later became private respondent Glaxo SmithKline after merger.
The NBI filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in San Fernando, Pampanga, charging Rodriguez with violation of Section 4 (in relation to Sections 3 and 5) of Republic Act No. 8203, the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs (SLCD). The operative classifying provision was Section 3(b)(3), which includes an “unregistered imported drug product” as a counterfeit drug. During preliminary investigation Rodriguez raised a constitutional challenge to the SLCD, but Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Celerina C. Pineda issued a resolution (17 August 2001) recommending prosecution under Section 4(a), which was approved by Provincial Prosecutor Jesus Y. Manarang.
Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court commanding the RTC and the Provincial Prosecutor to desist from further prosecuting Rodriguez and asking that Sections 3(b)(3), 4 and 5 of the SLCD be declared unconstitutional on equal protection and right-to-health grounds (Art. II, Sec. 15; Art. XIII, Sec. 11). By Resolution dated 15 October 2001 the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the RTC from proceeding with trial and enjoining BFAD, NBI and Glaxo SmithKline from prosecuting petitioners. The petition met opposition from Glaxo SmithKline and the Office of the Solicitor General acting for the public respondents.
Before the Court could finally decide the constitutional challenge, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008). Section 7 of RA 9502 amended Section 72 of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293) to provide, inter alia, that with regard to drugs and medicines the limitation on patent rights shall apply after a drug has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world by the patent owner or a party authorized to use the invention, and that “the right to import the drugs and medicines contemplated in this section shall be available to any government agency or any private third party.” The Intellectual Property Office promulgated implementing rules on 4 November 2008. The Supreme Court concluded the later statute and rules produced an irreconcilable conflict with the SLCD and resolved the petition accordingly.
Issues:
- Should the writ of prohibition be granted to enjoin the prosecution of Romeo Rodriguez for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8203?
- Did Republic Act No. 9502 (and its Implementing Rules) effectively abrogate or render inoperative the SLCD provisions criminalizing “unregistered imported drugs” by granting private third parties the right to import patented drugs?
- Are Sections 3(b)(3), 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 8203 unconstitutional under the Constitution (equal protection; Art. XIII, Sec. 11; Art. II, Sec. 15)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)