Title
Tomas vs. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group - Anti-Organized Crime Division
Case
G.R. No. 208090
Decision Date
Nov 9, 2016
A petitioner seeks to reverse a decision finding probable cause against him for trademark infringement and unfair competition, leading to a discussion on the immutability of judgment and the consequences of forum shopping.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208090)

Facts:

  • Petitioner: Ferdinand V. Tomas
  • Respondents: Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)-Anti-Organized Crime Division (AOCD) and Myrna Uy Tomas
  • Date: October 24, 2007
  • Event: CIDG-AOCD applied for four search warrants from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
  • Judge: Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros issued the search warrants.
  • Search Locations: FMT Merchandising and another location in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.
  • Seizure: Items allegedly infringing on the Pedrollo trademark were seized.
  • Petitioner's Action: Filed a motion to quash the search warrants, citing non-compliance with SC Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC.
  • RTC Decision: Initially partially granted the motion but later reversed its decision.
  • Petition for Certiorari: Filed by the petitioner with the Court of Appeals (CA), which quashed the search warrants.
  • CA Decision: Became final and executory.
  • Secretary of Justice: Found probable cause against the petitioner for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
  • Petitioner's Challenge: Challenged the finding in the CA, which upheld the Secretary of Justice's decision.
  • Current Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. Violation of Immutability: The Supreme Court found that the CA's Fourth Division violated the rule on the immutability of a final judgment by upholding the validity of the search warrants.
  2. Invalid Dismissal: The CA's Fourth Division cannot validly dismiss the case after the Sixth Division had rendered a final judgment.
  3. Conclusive Judgment...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • Doctrine of Finality: The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of finality of judgment, which states that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable.
  • CA's Sixth Division: Had already quashed the search warrants, and this decision had become final and executory.
  • Violation by Fourth Division: The CA's Fourth Division's decision to uphold the validity of the search warrants violated this principle.
  • Forum Shopping: The Court found that the petitioner did not willfully violate the rule against forum shopping, as he had informed the CA of the existence of the first petition.
  • Principle Clarification: The Court clarified that while the decision of the CA Sixth Division had attained finality, the principle it laid down should not be followed.
  • Delegation of Duty: The Court found that the heads of agencies...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.