Case Digest (G.R. No. 168662)
Facts:
Sanrio Company Limited v. Edgar C. Lim, G.R. No. 168662, February 19, 2008, the Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Sanrio Company Limited, a Japanese corporation owning copyrights in characters such as Hello Kitty and others, is not engaged in business in the Philippines but sells its products here through its exclusive distributor Gift Gate Incorporated (GGI). GGI granted licenses to local manufacturers JC Lucas Creative Products, Inc., Paper Line Graphics, Inc., and Melawares Manufacturing Corporation to produce certain Sanrio products for the local market.
After reports of counterfeit Sanrio goods, IP Manila Associates (IPMA) conducted market research and, by affidavit dated May 29, 2000, identified respondent Edgar C. Lim, doing business as Orignamura Trading in Tutuban Center, Manila, as selling imitations. The NBI obtained a search warrant (issued May 30, 2000) and seized various Sanrio items from respondent’s premises.
On April 4, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Task-Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) charging respondent with violation of Section 217 (in relation to Sections 177 and 178) of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC). Respondent filed a counter-affidavit asserting he was only a retailer who purchased the items from authorized manufacturers and submitted receipts to show provenance.
On September 25, 2002, the TAPP dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding that respondent had bought the merchandise from legitimate sources and relied in good faith on the representations of those suppliers. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 27, 2003. Petitioner then appealed to the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, which affirmed the dismissal on August 29, 2003.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA-G.R. CV No. 74660 (opinion penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona of the Fourth Division), the CA dismissed the petition on May 3, 2005 primarily on prescription grounds under Act No. 3326, reasoning that no complaint had been filed in court within the applicable prescriptive period. The CA also held on the merits that the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint because petitioner failed to prove respondent’s knowledge that the goods were infringing; respondent had receipts from legitimate sources. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (resolution dated June 22, 2005).
Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, contending that (1) the filing of the complaint-affid...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the filing of the complaint-affidavit before the TAPP of the DOJ interrupt or toll the prescriptive period for the prosecution of the alleged violation under Act No. 3326?
- Did the DOJ commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause under Section 217 of the Int...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)