Title
NBI vs. Microsoft Corp. vs. Hwang
Case
G.R. No. 147043
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2005
Microsoft sued Beltron for copyright infringement and unfair competition after terminating a licensing agreement; DOJ dismissed, but SC ruled in favor of Microsoft, finding probable cause.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147043)

Petitioners

• Microsoft Corporation
• Lotus Development Corporation

Respondents

• Judy C. Hwang, Benito Keh, Yvonne Keh, Jonathan K. Chua, Emily K. Chua, Benito T. Sanchez, Nancy I. Velasco, Alfonso Chua, Alberto Chua, Sophia Ong, Deanna Chua, Beltron Computer Philippines, Inc., Taiwan Machinery Display & Trade Center, Inc., and the Secretary of Justice

Key Dates

• May 1993 – Microsoft and Beltron execute the Licensing Agreement.
• January 1994 – Agreement amended to clarify reproduction and distribution rights.
• June 22, 1995 – Microsoft terminates the Agreement for nonpayment of royalties.
• November 10, 1995 – Test-buy yields infringing software and hardware.
• November 17, 1995 – Search warrants issued and executed on Beltron and TMTC premises.
• October 26, 1999; December 3, 1999; August 3, 2000; December 22, 2000 – Department of Justice dismisses complaints at various levels.
• June 21, 2005 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 cases)
• Presidential Decree No. 49 (as amended) – Sections 5(A) and 29 on copyright infringement
• Revised Penal Code – Article 189(1) on unfair competition
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 7 Section 5 (anti-forum shopping)

Petition for Certiorari

Microsoft sought certiorari relief from DOJ resolutions dismissing its complaint for copyright infringement and unfair competition against respondents. The petition challenged the DOJ’s finding of no probable cause and its characterization of the dispute as purely civil.

Licensing Agreement and Termination

Under the May 1993 Agreement, Beltron was authorized to reproduce one copy of Microsoft software per customer system and to distribute licensed copies acquired from authorized replicators or distributors. Microsoft validly terminated the Agreement on June 22, 1995, due to Beltron’s failure to pay royalties.

Test-Buy Operation and Seizure

In November 1995, agents from Pinkerton and the NBI purchased a CPU with pre-installed Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS, plus 12 CD-ROMs labeled as containing Microsoft software, from respondents. Search warrants executed shortly thereafter yielded 2,831 CD-ROMs and various hardware and packaging materials.

Department of Justice Resolutions

The DOJ dismissed Microsoft’s complaint on grounds that (1) the dispute was civil in nature, involving contractual obligations, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove counterfeit products or intent to defraud. Lotus’s complaint was also dismissed for lack of interest and evidence. Microsoft’s motions for reconsideration were denied up to the DOJ Secretary level.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Microsoft engaged in impermissible forum-shopping.
  2. Whether the DOJ gravely abused its discretion in finding no probable cause for criminal charges of copyright infringement and unfair competition.

Forum-Shopping Analysis

The Supreme Court held that Microsoft did not forum-shop. The appeal in the Court of Appeals challenged RTC orders quashing search warrants, whereas the certiorari petition contested DOJ resolutions dismissing criminal charges. The issues, reliefs prayed for, and procedural postures differ such that res judicata does not apply.

Probable Cause Standard

Probable cause requires a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that an offense has been committed. It does not demand proof beyond reasonable doubt or conclusive evidence of guilt.

Copyright Infringement Liability

Under PD 49 Section 5(A), copyright infringement includes any unauthorized exercise of rights such as copying or distribution. The Supreme Court emphasized that infringement does not depend on manufacturing role but on unauthorized acts covered by Section 5.

Unfair Competition Liability

Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code penalizes passing of

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.