G.R. No. 144309 - Solid Triangle Sales Corp. vs. Sheriff of Regional Trial Court Quezon City, Branch 93

On January 28, 1999, RTC Branch 93 Judge Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. issued Search Warrant No. 3324 (99) under Section 168, R.A. No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code) against Sanly Corporation for alleged unfair competition and directed EIIB agents to seize infringing goods.
Pursuant thereto, 451 boxes of genuine Mitsubishi photographic color paper were seized from Sanly’s warehouse and turned over to the court.

Solid Triangle Sales Corp., through its Marketing and Communication Manager Robert Sitchon, filed I.S. No. 1-99-2870 before the City Prosecutor, Quezon City, for unfair competition against Sanly, LWT Co., Inc., ERA Radio and Electrical Supply and moved in RTC Branch 93 to transfer custody of the seized goods.
Respondents moved to quash the search warrant; Judge Bruselas denied the motion on March 5, 1999, granted it on March 18, and denied reconsideration on March 26, 1999.

On March 29, 1999, Solid Triangle filed Civil Case Q-99-37206 (Branch 91, RTC Quezon City) for damages, injunctions and a writ of preliminary attachment; the latter was denied on March 31, 1999 for lack of an affidavit of merits.
On April 20, 1999, RTC Branch 93 issued an order directing petitioners to return the seized goods or show cause why they should not be cited for contempt. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 26, obtained a TRO, and on July 6, 1999 CA initially granted certiorari and preserved the warrant; in its “Amendatory Decision” CA reversed itself, found no probable cause for unfair competition, quashed the warrant, ruled evidence inadmissible, denied attachment, and on August 4, 2000 denied reconsideration.

Whether the judge who issued and whose branch implemented a search warrant may subsequently quash it pending preliminary investigation.
Whether such quashal usurps the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor to determine probable cause.

Whether the importation and sale of genuine Mitsubishi photo paper by Sanly and related entities constitute “passing off” or deception under Section 168, IP Code.
Whether the obliteration of emulsion numbers and concealment of packages demonstrates bad faith and deception sufficient for criminal unfair competition.

Whether a separate affidavit of merits is required when a petition for attachment is verified under oath by an authorized officer.
Whether absence of such affidavit is fatal to the attachment application.

Whether petitioners’ refusal or delay in returning the goods pursuant to the April 20, 1999 show-cause order constitutes indirect contempt.
Whether interlocutory relief (certiorari/TRO) bars contempt proceedings.