G.R. No. L-17748 - People vs. Cabrera

Petitioners Melbarose R. Sasot and Allandale R. Sasot, officers of Allandale Sportslines, Inc., were charged with unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 98-166147 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 1 (later Branch 24).
NBA Properties, Inc. (a U.S. corporation owning registered NBA trademarks) filed a complaint via its president, Rick Welts, alleging that petitioners manufactured, printed, sold and distributed counterfeit NBA-branded garment products.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a probe (April 30–May 9, 1997) and issued a Report (June 4, 1997) documenting seizure of alleged counterfeit items and recommending prosecution for unfair competition.
Rick Welts executed (a) a Special Power of Attorney (October 7, 1997) authorizing Philippine counsel to file complaints, and (b) a Complaint-Affidavit (February 12, 1998) before a New York notary, both duly authenticated for Philippine use.
Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez recommended filing of an Information; the RTC prosecutor filed an Information on May 9, 1997, charging petitioners with willful, unlawful and felonious manufacture and sale of garments bearing NBA names and symbols “to the damage and prejudice of NBA Properties, Inc.”

Before arraignment, petitioners moved to quash the Information, contending that (a) the facts charged did not constitute an offense, (b) the court lacked jurisdiction, (c) the complaint was defective (not sworn before the fiscal), (d) NBA Properties, Inc. was not registered in the Philippines and thus lacked capacity to sue, and (e) petitioners’ designs were original, not infringing.
The RTC (Branch 1) denied the motion to quash in an Order dated March 5, 1999, finding the complaint and Information legally sufficient and noting the public nature of the crime.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 52151), which dismissed the petition on January 26, 2000, as an improper remedy to assail denial of a motion to quash. Reconsideration was denied.

Whether a foreign corporation not licensed in the Philippines may maintain an action for unfair competition.
Whether a corporate officer may sue without board authority.
Whether an unused foreign mark is protected.
Whether the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the offense and persons.
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the certiorari petition.

The Office of the Solicitor General opposed, urging dismissal for lack of merit and absence of exceptional circumstances warranting certiorari.

Is a special civil action for certiorari the proper remedy to challenge the denial of a motion to quash an information?
Are defects in the complaint (e.g., oath before fiscal, corporate capacity, lack of board resolution) valid grounds to quash the Information under Rule 117, Section 3, of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
Was the complaint-affidavit and Information substantially sufficient under Rule 112, Section 3, of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
Does the public nature of the crime of unfair competition render the complainant’s capacity to sue immaterial?
Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for certiorari?