Title
Sasot vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 143193
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2005
Petitioners accused of manufacturing counterfeit NBA-branded products; Supreme Court upheld trial court's jurisdiction, ruling unfair competition as a public crime.
unfair competition
trial court
plea
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143193)

Factual Background and Origin of Prosecution

In May 1997 the NBI investigated a complaint by NBA Properties, Inc., which alleged that petitioners manufactured, printed, sold and distributed garment products bearing NBA team names and trademarks. The NBI Report (June 4, 1997) identified numerous NBA team names used on clothing items and stated that petitioners were producing counterfeit NBA-branded garments; it recommended prosecution for unfair competition under Article 189, RPC. Rick Welts executed a Special Power of Attorney (October 7, 1997) appointing a Philippine law firm to file complaints and also executed a Complaint-Affidavit (February 12, 1998) before a New York notary; the notarial acknowledgment was authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in New York.

Charging Instrument and Pretrial Motion

Prosecution Attorney Gutierrez recommended filing an Information, and an Information was filed charging petitioners with willfully and unlawfully manufacturing and selling garment products bearing NBA names, thereby inducing the public to believe the goods were those of NBA Properties, Inc., to the latter’s damage and prejudice. Before arraignment petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the grounds that (1) the facts charged did not constitute an offense and (2) the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense or the persons of the accused. Petitioners also asserted defects in the complaint (alleging it was not properly sworn to before the fiscal), lack of authority of the corporate officer to file suit without board authorization, and that NBA Properties, Inc. was a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines and not a registered patentee.

Intermediate Proceedings and Relief Sought

The trial prosecutor opposed the motion to quash, asserting possession of the original complaint and that prosecution of unfair competition is an action by the State that does not require the private offended party’s participation. The RTC denied the motion to quash. Petitioners then sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition as an improper remedy to attack denial of a motion to quash and ordered the RTC to proceed. Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 45 raising multiple issues concerning standing of a foreign corporation, authority of its officer, use and registration of trademarks, jurisdiction, and alleged grave abuse by the CA.

Issues Framed on Review

The principal questions raised were: whether a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action for unfair competition; whether an officer of such a foreign corporation may act without board authority; whether a foreign corporation whose emblem is not in actual use in the Philippines is entitled to protection; whether the RTC correctly assumed jurisdiction over the offense and the persons of the accused; and whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse by dismissing the petition for certiorari.

Legal Standards on Motions to Quash and Complaint Sufficiency

The Court reviewed the specific grounds for quashing an information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (enumerating limited grounds such as facts not constituting an offense, lack of jurisdiction, officer’s lack of authority, nonconformity to form, etc.). The Court emphasized that defects in the complaint before the fiscal and questions as to the private complainant’s capacity are not among the enumerated grounds for quashal. The Court also examined Section 3, Rule 112 governing the sufficiency of criminal complaints, which requires the known address of the respondent and that affidavits be sworn before a fiscal, state prosecutor, authorized government official, or a notary public in the notarial officer’s absence, subject to certification that the affiants were personally examined if the affidavit was before a notary.

Assessment of Formal Requirements and Prosecutorial Regularity

The Court found that the Complaint-Affidavit bore a notarial acknowledgment by the New York notary and was authenticated by the Philippine Consulate; the prosecution represented that the authenticated original was available. The Court noted that the prosecutor enjoys a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties and that there were supporting documents (NBI report, a letter from NBA counsel to the NBI, and a Joint Affidavit by Pinkerton consultants) that justified the prosecutor’s recommendation to file information. The Court reiterated precedent that absence of an oath is a defect of form which does not affect substantial rights and that a mere photocopy on the record, where the original exists or can be produced, does not vitiate the prosecution.

Nature of the Offense and Relevance of Private Party’s Capacity

The Court emphasized that the offense of unfair competition under Article 189

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms