G.R. No. 163741 - Summerville General Merchandising and Co., Inc. vs. Eugenio, Jr.

A complaint for unfair competition was filed by Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. (petitioner) against private respondents Elidad Kho, Violeta Kho, and Roger Kho.
The complaint arose from allegations that the respondents, operating as KEC Cosmetic Laboratory, engaged in deceptive practices by selling facial cream products that mimicked those of the petitioner, thereby misleading the public and affecting the petitioner’s market.

Following an investigation, the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila issued a May 31, 2000 Resolution recommending the prosecution of the private respondents for unfair competition and dismissing their counterclaim against the petitioner.
Based on the prosecutor’s resolution, an Information for unfair competition (Crim. Case No. 00-183261) was filed before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24. The Information charged that the respondents, through joint and willful action, misrepresented their facial cream products to the public, purporting them to be those of Summerville.

The arraignment was scheduled for July 13, 2000, but due to intervening petitions for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), initial proceedings were affected.
On October 11, 2000, after the arraignment pushed through, the accused, refusing to plead to the charge, entered a plea of not guilty.

Private respondents filed a petition for review with the DOJ against the May 31, 2000 Resolution, which was initially affirmed by Undersecretary Regis V. Puno on August 17, 2000.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration led DOJ Secretary Hernando Perez to recall and set aside the August 17, 2000 Resolution on June 18, 2001, without providing a substantive ruling on the merits.
Private respondents also sought to suspend the clinical proceedings pending the DOJ’s final decision, but the trial court denied this motion on July 18, 2001.

The trial court granted the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the prosecution on October 22, 2001.
Accordingly, the Information against the accused was withdrawn, rendering the Motion to Dismiss filed by the accused moot.

On November 23, 2001, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the October 24, 2001 Order.
On June 6, 2002, the trial court issued an order holding all pending incidents in abeyance pending further resolution.
Private respondents subsequently filed motions, including a supplemental motion on July 31, 2002, arguing that the case should be dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy.

August 21, 2002 Order – The trial court held that the previous withdrawal of the Information negated the need to dismiss the case, warning that a re-filing would constitute double jeopardy.
April 2, 2003 Order – The trial court ruled that the revival of the case was barred by double jeopardy, effectively ending further proceedings.

Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus was filed with the CA to annul the RTC Orders dated October 24, 2001, August 21, 2002, and April 2, 2003.
In its May 26, 2004 Decision, the CA upheld the dismissal of the case on the basis that double jeopardy had set in, finding no grave abuse of discretion by Judge Eugenio in withdrawing the Information.

Judge Eugenio abused his discretion by proceeding with arraignment and subsequently allowing the withdrawal of the Information without independently assessing the evidence.
The CA erred in not holding that such conduct amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and in misapplying the doctrine regarding double jeopardy.
The re-filing or reinstatement of the Information did not constitute double jeopardy since the necessary elements for its application were not all present.

Whether Judge Eugenio committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the withdrawal of the Information against the private respondents without independently determining the existence of a prima facie case.

Whether the re-filing or the reinstatement of the Information for unfair competition would constitute double jeopardy under the Constitution.