Case Digest (G.R. No. 161693)
Facts:
Petitioner Manolo P. Samson was charged with unfair competition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71 in Criminal Case No. 02-23183, based on an Information alleging violation of Sec. 168.3(a) in relation to Secs. 123.1(e), 131.3 and 170 of R.A. No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines), for distributing and selling products bearing marks and designs closely identical or colorable with CATERPILLAR products.He moved to quash on the ground that the RTC allegedly lacked jurisdiction because Sec. 170 imposes imprisonment of two (2) to five (5) years, and R.A. No. 7691 (amending B.P. Blg. 129) purportedly vested exclusive original jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) for offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years. The trial court denied the motion, and the denial was sustained upon reconsideration. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on February 18, 2004 during the pendency of the petition, which involved essentially the same jurisdictional issue Samson had raised in Samson vs. Daway.
Issues:
- Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the criminal case for unfair competition under R.A. No. 8293, despite the imprisonment range under Sec. 170 being within the MTC threshold under R.A. No. 7691.
- Whether R.A. No. 8293 had repealed Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 166, such that jurisdiction over unfair competition cases would lie with the MTC instead of the RTC.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 161693)
Facts:
On June 28, 2005, the Second Division of the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in Manolo P. Samson v. Hon. Victoriano B. Cabanos and others, involving Criminal Case No. 02-23183 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71. The petitioner, Manolo P. Samson, was charged with unfair competition under Section 168 in relation to Sections 123.1(e), 131.3, and 170 of R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. The Information alleged that, during the first week of November 1999 and sometime before or after that date, in Cainta, Rizal, and within the court’s jurisdiction, Samson, as owner or proprietor of ITTI Shoes Corporation, willfully and unlawfully distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale CATERPILLAR products and closely identical or colorable imitations, using trademarks, symbols, and/or designs likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception to the buying public, to the damage and prejudice of Caterpillar, Inc. Samson moved to quash the Information on the ground that the RTC allegedly lacked jurisdiction, arguing that under Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, the penalty for Section 168 violations is imprisonment of two (2) to five (5) years and a fine, but that R.A. No. 7691 (amending B.P. Blg. 129) vested exclusive original jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, regardless of the amount of fine. He also invoked the claimed repeal of the old Trademark Law’s jurisdictional rule, relying on Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals. Presiding Judge Felix S. Caballes denied the motion to quash in an order dated January 22, 2003. Samson sought reconsideration, but Acting Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos likewise denied it in an order dated November 17, 2003. Samson then filed a petition for certiorari on a pure question of law, asking whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the charged unfair competition offense despite the penalty range being within the six-year threshold contemplated by R.A. No. 7691. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on February 18, 2004, but later dismissed the petition. The Court noted that Samson had already raised the same issue and argument in Samson v. Daway decided on July 21, 2004, involving the same facts and issue, except that the Information was filed in the RTC of Quezon City. In its discussion, the Court treated its earlier ruling in Samson v. Daway as controlling as the law of the case and found no reason to depart from it.Issues:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal offense of unfair competition charged under R.A. No. 8293, notwithstanding that the penalty for the offense under Section 170 provides imprisonment of two (2) to five (5) years, and that R.A. No. 7691 generally grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the MTC for offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, regardless of the fine.Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 161693)
Facts:
- Parties, petition, and assailed orders
- Petitioner Manolo P. Samson sought the reversal of the orders dated January 22, 2003 and November 17, 2003 issued by Presiding Judge Felix S. Caballes and Acting Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71.
- The assailed orders arose from Criminal Case No. 02-23183.
- The trial court orders denied petitioner’s motion to quash the information for unfair competition filed against him.
- Petitioner also prayed for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent judge from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 02-23183 pending resolution of the instant petition.
- The Court issued a temporary restraining order on February 18, 2004.
- Information and allegations of unfair competition
- Petitioner was charged with unfair competition before the RTC of Antipolo City in an Information stating violation of Sec. 168.3 (a) in relation to Secs. 123.1 (e), 131.3, and 170 of R.A. No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).
- The Information alleged that petitioner, on or about the first week of November 1999 and sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Cainta, Rizal, and within the jurisdiction of the RTC, willfully and unlawfully distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale CATERPILLAR products (footwear, garments, clothing, bags, accessories, and paraphernalia).
- The Information alleged that the distributed products were closely identical to and/or colorable imitations of authentic Caterpillar products.
- The Information further alleged use of trademarks, symbols, and/or designs that would cause confusion, mistake, or deception on the part of the buying public to the damage and prejudice of Caterpillar, Inc., the prior adopter, user, and owner of marks including: "CATERPILLAR," "CAT," "CATERPILLAR & DESIGN," "CAT AND DESIGN," "WALKING MACHINES," and "TRACK-TYPE TRACTOR & DESIGN."
- The Information charged the act as CONTRARY TO LAW.
- Motion to quash and trial court rulings
- Petitioner moved to quash on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the Information.
- Petitioner argued that Sec. 170 of R.A. No. 8293 provides a penalty for violation of Sec. 168 of imprisonment from two (2) to five (5) years and a fine ranging from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.
- Petitioner argued that R.A. No. 7691, amending B.P. Blg. 129, vested in Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of the fine.
- Presiding Judge Felix S. Caballes denied the motion to quash in an order dated January 22, 2003.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which Acting Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos denied.
- Issues raised in petition before the Court
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before this Court on a pure question of law.
- The question presented was whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the offenses charged where the penalty range was from two (2) years to five (5) years, considering Sec. 170 of R.A. No. 8293 and the enactment of R.A. No. 7691, amending B.P. Blg. 129, which vested exclusive original jurisdiction on the MTC over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine, in relation to Sec. 163 of R.A. No. 8293.
- Arguments reiterated by petitioner
- Petitioner reiterated that Sec. 170 fixed the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Jurisdiction over the criminal case for unfair competition
- Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense of unfair competition charged in the Information when the penalty range was two (2) to five (5) years, in light of Sec. 170 of R.A. No. 8293 and R.A. No. 7691 amending B.P. Blg. 129.
- Whether Sec. 163 of R.A. No. 8293 required actions under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166 to 169 to be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws, thereby incorporating the jurisdictional allocations in B.P. Blg. 129 as amended.
- Effect of repeal clause and continued application of trademark-law jurisdiction
- Whether R.A. No. 8293 expressly or impliedly repealed Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 166 (jurisdiction of Court of First Instance over unfair competiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)