Case Digest (G.R. No. 179367)
Facts:
Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. Tan, G.R. No. 179367, January 29, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Unilever Philippines, Inc. filed criminal complaints against respondent Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. Tan for violation of Section 168, in relation to Section 170, of R.A. No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code), docketed before the Department of Justice as I.S. No. 2002-667. On January 17, 2002, NBI agents obtained search warrants from the Regional Trial Court, Manila (Branch 1) and searched respondent’s office at Probest International Trading Building and a warehouse in Marikina City, seizing over a thousand sachets and numerous boxes of alleged counterfeit Unilever shampoo products. The NBI also submitted joint affidavits and other documentary evidence in support.
Respondent denied ownership of the warehouse, claimed his name was “Paul D. Tan,” asserted he sold leather goods not shampoos, and maintained that the sachets found in his office were for personal consumption. After preliminary investigation the State Prosecutor recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence, finding lack of proof of respondent’s actual and direct participation and no showing that he owned the warehouse. The prosecutor’s resolution of December 18, 2002 was denied reconsideration on June 5, 2003.
Acting Secretary of Justice Merceditas N. Gutierrez affirmed the dismissal in a March 16, 2004 resolution. Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) but the CA, in CA G.R. SP No. 87000, dismissed the petition by decision dated June 18, 2007 and denied reconsideration by resolution dated August 16, 2007, holding that the DOJ did not gravely abuse its discretion and that petitioner failed to establish facts suf...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in upholding the Acting Secretary of Justice’s dismissal of the complaint (i.e., was there grave abuse of discretion)?
- Was there probable cause to indict Michael Tan for unfair competition under Section 168 in relation to Section ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)