Case Summary (G.R. No. 194062)
Petitioner and Respondent Roles
– Petitioners: REGASCO and its corporate officers, licensed to refill and distribute LPG.
– Respondents: Trademark owners and licensors of GASUL and SHELLANE LPG products.
Key Dates
– February 5, 2004: Letter‐complaint filed with NBI alleging unauthorized refilling.
– February 19, 2004: NBI test‐buy operation at REGASCO’s Malabon plant.
– March 5, 2004: Search warrants issued for alleged violations of B.P. 33.
– January 28, 2005: NBI files complaint under RA 8293 (Intellectual Property Code).
– January 15, 2006 & September 18, 2008: Prosecutor and DOJ Secretary dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
– July 2, 2010 & October 11, 2010: Court of Appeals grants certiorari and sets aside DOJ resolution.
– June 17, 2013: Supreme Court decision denying the petition and affirming CA’s reversal.
Applicable Law
– Batas Pambansa Blg. 33 (as amended by PD 1865): Regulation against underfilling and illegal trading of LPG.
– Republic Act No. 8293, Sections 155 (Trademark Infringement), 168 (Unfair Competition), and 170 (Penalties).
Factual Background
NBI surveillance and a test‐buy operation established that REGASCO refilled LPG cylinders bearing GASUL and SHELLANE trademarks without authorization. The undercover operatives witnessed refilling, received a single invoice covering all cylinders (including those they supplied), and noted that the cylinders were underfilled and lacked the requisite seals.
Procedural History
Following the test‐buy, NBI obtained and executed search warrants, seizing branded cylinders and paraphernalia. The Department of Justice filed charges under RA 8293 but the City Prosecutor and DOJ Secretary dismissed the case due to lack of evidence of deception or trademark misuse beyond ordinary refilling. REGASCO sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the DOJ resolution. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
- Whether certiorari was prematurely filed without a motion for reconsideration.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for trademark infringement (Sec. 155) and unfair competition (Sec. 168) under RA 8293.
- Whether individual petitioners may be held criminally liable for the corporation’s acts.
Motion for Reconsideration Exception
The Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration was unnecessary because the questions raised were identical to those the Secretary of Justice had already addressed and decided.
Trademark Infringement Analysis
Under Section 155, unauthorized use of a registered mark in connection with sale or distribution that likely causes confusion constitutes infringement. REGASCO’s refilling of GASUL and SHELLANE cylinders without consent created the likelihood of confusion among consumers, who would assume the contents were the trademark owners’ product.
Unfair Competition Analysis
Section 168.3(a) defines unfair competition as giving one’s goods the appearance of another’s to deceive purchasers. By refilling and selling cylinders bearing respondents’ marks, REGASCO passed off its LPG as that of Petron and She
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194062)
Facts of the Case
- Petron Corporation (“Petrona”) owns the GASUL trademark and authorizes refillers to use it for LPG products.
- Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (“Shella”) is authorized by Shell International to use SHELLANE marks for LPG and permits refillers and distributors accordingly.
- Republic Gas Corporation (“REGASCO”), licensed to refill and market LPG, allegedly refilled cylinders bearing GASUL and SHELLANE marks without authorization.
- Dealers’ associations filed a complaint with the NBI, alleging illegal refilling and underfilling of branded LPG cylinders by REGASCO in Malabon.
- NBI Senior Agent Marvin E. De Jemil conducted surveillance, a test‐buy operation on February 19, 2004, and confirmed that REGASCO refilled four empty branded cylinders brought in undercover, issued Cash Invoice No. 191391, and that the cylinders were underfilled and lacked proper seals.
Investigation and Search Warrants
- On March 5, 2004, Agent De Jemil applied for search warrants under B.P. 33, as amended by PD 1865, against REGASCO’s Malabon plant and its officers.
- The supporting affidavit detailed unauthorized refilling, surveillance results, a test‐buy operation, and documentary evidence (certification, photographs, marked cylinders).
- RTC Branch 24 found probable cause, issued Search Warrants Nos. 04-5049 and 04-5050, and NBI operatives seized empty and filled GASUL and SHELLANE cylinders and paraphernalia.
Department of Justice Proceedings
- On January 28, 2005, the NBI lodged a complaint for trademark infringement (RA 8293, Sections 155, 168) against REGASCO and its directors/officers (private respondents).
- Assistant City Prosecutor Velasco recommended dismissal on January 15, 2006, finding insufficient proof of unauthorized use or deception and no evidence of passing off in normal refilling business.
- The DOJ Secretary affirmed the dismissal on September 18, 2008, reasoning that:
- Refilling empty branded cylinders is not an offense per se if customers bring them for t