Case Digest (G.R. No. 168306)
Facts:
This is William C. Yao, Sr., et al. v. The People of the Philippines, Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., G.R. No. 168306, promulgated June 19, 2007, decided by the Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are William C. Yao, Sr., Luisa C. Yao, Richard C. Yao, William C. Yao, Jr., and Roger C. Yao (collectively, petitioners), incorporators and officers of Masagana Gas Corporation (MASAGANA). Private respondents are Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation; the People of the Philippines is also respondent.On 3 April 2003 NBI Agent Ritche N. Oblanca filed two applications for search warrants with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Cavite City, alleging violations of Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code). Oblanca’s applications were supported by his affidavits and by affidavits of Bernabe C. Alajar, a private investigator hired under the brand‑protection programs of Petron and Pilipinas Shell; the affidavits recounted surveillance and two test‑buys (13 and 27 February 2003) at MASAGANA’s refilling plant, attached invoices and photographs, and certified trademark registrations for GASUL and SHELL/SHELLANE. Judge Melchor Q.C. Sadang found probable cause and issued Search Warrants No. 2‑2003 (Shellane/Shell items) and No. 3‑2003 (Gasul items), authorizing seizure of cylinders, refilling equipment, documents and certain delivery trucks.
NBI operatives executed the warrants and seized, among other things, numerous filled and empty LPG cylinders bearing GASUL and SHELLANE marks, two motor compressors and an LPG refilling machine (quantities described in the record), and related documents. On 22 April 2003 petitioners moved to quash the warrants, arguing lack of probable cause, lack of authority of Oblanca and Alajar to apply or testify, failure to particularize the place and the items to be seized, and that MASAGANA (as a separate corporate owner) had a right to the return of the seized equipment. MASAGANA, as third‑party claimant, separately moved for return of the motor compressor and refilling machine on 30 April 2003.
On 5 June 2003 the RTC denied the Motion to Quash and denied MASAGANA’s motion for return, concluding that the affidavits, documentary and photographic evidence and test‑buys established probable cause; that Oblanca and Alajar had personal knowledge; that the compound was sufficiently particularized; that the items to be seized were described with sufficient particularity; and that petitioners could not hide behind corporate fiction where the corporation was used to violate others’ rights. Motions for reconsideration were denied by the RTC on 21 July 2003.
Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals by special civil action under Rule 65. In CA‑G.R. SP No. 79256 the Court of A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there probable cause for issuance of Search Warrants No. 2‑2003 and No. 3‑2003?
- Could NBI Agent Ritche N. Oblanca (and private investigator Bernabe Alajar) properly apply for and testify in support of the search warrant despite not being assigned to the NBI’s Intellectual Property Division?
- Did the search warrants fail the constitutional particularity requirement as to the place to be searched?
- Did the search warrants fail to describe with particularity the items to be seized?
- Were petitioners/ MASAGANA entitled to the return of the seized compressor and re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)