G.R. No. 208090 - Tomas vs. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208090)

Factual Background: Complaints and Search Warrants

Private respondent Myrna Uy Tomas filed four complaints for violations of Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293. The first two complaints, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2007-926 and 2007-927, were against petitioner and other respondents. The third and fourth complaints, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2007-940 and 2007-941, were against petitioner alone.

On October 24, 2007, the PNP CIDG-AOCD presented four applications for issuance of search warrants before the RTC of Manila. The applications were signed by P/Chief Inspector Helsin B. Walin and approved by Police Director Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief of the CIDG. The Presiding Judge of the RTC, Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, issued four search warrants (Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103) which were used in searches at the premises of FMT Merchandising in Alexander Street, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and at 394 Cayambanan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.

The search at the FMT Merchandising premises resulted in the seizure of one (1) piece of Pedrollo JSWm/8H 0.75 water pump. The search at Brgy. Cayambanan yielded items including: three hundred forty-two (342) empty boxes of Pedrollo; nineteen (19) pieces of Pedrollo terminal box cover; thirty-one (31) pieces of Pedrollo electric water pump; three (3) unserviceable Pedrollo water pump; and twenty-one (21) pieces of Pedrollo gauge.

RTC Proceedings: Partial Quash, Then Reconsideration

Petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion to Quash the Search Warrants and/or to Suppress Evidence, challenging the applications for search warrants for alleged noncompliance with SC Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC. Petitioner contended that applications for search warrants that may be filed by agencies such as the NBI, PNP, and ACTAF must be personally endorsed by the heads of those agencies. Petitioner argued that because the applications were merely endorsed and/or approved by Chief of CIDG Edgardo M. Doromal, rather than personally endorsed by the Chief of the PNP, the warrants should be quashed.

On January 11, 2008, the RTC partially granted the motion and quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 and A07-12103. After a motion for partial reconsideration by respondents, the RTC later reconsidered. On April 16, 2008, it denied the motions, granted the private complainant’s reconsideration motion, and set aside its earlier order quashing Search Warrant Nos. A07-12102 and A07-12103.

CA Proceedings (First Petition): CA Sixth Division Quashed the Warrants

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 104029, questioning the RTC orders dated April 16, 2008 and January 11, 2008. On August 16, 2011, the CA Sixth Division granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the RTC orders and quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103.

The CA Sixth Division anchored its ruling on Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which it held required that applications for issuance of search warrants filed in Manila and Quezon City for certain special criminal cases must be personally endorsed by the heads of the concerned agencies, including the Chief of the PNP for PNP-filed applications. The CA reasoned that the PNP applications signed by P/Chief Inspector Helsin B. Walin and approved by CIDG Chief Doromal were not personally endorsed by the then PNP Chief, Avelino Razon, and thus were defective.

The CA Sixth Division additionally discussed that a subsequent Supreme Court resolution dated July 15, 2008 allowing delegation of endorsement to the Director of the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management had been granted only on that later date, making it inapplicable to the October 26, 2007 filing of the subject applications.

The CA Sixth Division further found grave error in the RTC’s denial of suppression and denial of the quashal of the relevant warrants.

Petition Before the Supreme Court: Denial of Review in the First CA Case

The petitioner then sought review before the Supreme Court, and in a Resolution dated March 5, 2012, the Court denied the petition for certiorari for failure to show reversible error. The resolution became final and executory, and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on August 16, 2012.

Secretary of Justice Proceedings and CA Proceedings (Second Petition): CA Fourth Division Affirmed Probable Cause

Separate from the quash/suppress controversy, after the Secretary of Justice issued the Joint Resolution dated July 24, 2009 finding probable cause, petitioner sought review under Rule 43 before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114479. On March 25, 2013, the CA Fourth Division denied petitioner’s petition and affirmed the Joint Resolution. On July 5, 2013, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, leading to the present Supreme Court petition.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

Petitioner raised three issues. First, he argued that the CA Fourth Division violated the rule on immutability of final judgments by declaring the search warrants validly issued, despite a prior CA Sixth Division ruling quashing them.

Second, he argued that the CA Fourth Division could not dismiss or disregard the prior CA Sixth Division judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 104029, which had become final and was already executed.

Third, petitioner argued that the final judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 104029, affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 199699, including the issue of forum shopping, was conclusive and could not be reopened or superseded without violating immutability.

Petitioner also maintained that there was no forum shopping, and that the two CA cases lacked identity of parties, identity of causes of action, and identity of reliefs.

The Court’s Assessment: Immutability of Judgment and Recognized Exceptions

The Court reiterated that under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that had acquired finality became immutable and unalterable. The Court held that this principle generally prevented modification even to correct alleged errors of fact and law.

However, the Court acknowledged recognized exceptions. It cited FGU Insurance Corporation v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, et al., which enumerated exceptions, including: correction of clerical errors; nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice; void judgments; and instances when circumstances transpire after finality such that execution becomes unjust and inequitable. The Court also recalled earlier jurisprudence allowing equity intervention when subsequent circumstances warranted it.

Applying those principles, the Court held that it saw no compelling reason to rule against the immutability of the CA Sixth Division’s Decision dated August 16, 2011, which had quashed the relevant search warrants.

Resolving the Conflict Between CA Divisions: Forum Shopping and the Court’s Refined View

The Court explained that the CA Fourth Division, in affirming the validity of the search warrants and in allowing evidence seized under them, had effectively treated the prior CA Sixth Division decision as amendable or not controlling. The CA Fourth Division had reasoned that even if the application lacked personal endorsement by the Chief of the PNP, the violation would at most expose concerned officers to administrative liability and would not nullify the search warrants.

The CA Fourth Division also found forum shopping and relied on the petitioner’s failure to fully inform the CA Fourth Division of the earlier CA Sixth Division proceeding at the time of filing the second petition. The CA Fourth Division traced the failure to comply with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and described forum shopping as requiring identity of parties (or parties representing the same interests), identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for founded on the same set of facts, and such that any judgment in the other case would amount to res judicata.

The Supreme Court, however, found the petition partly meritorious. It held that petitioner did not willfully violate forum shopping rules. The Court reasoned that when petitioner filed the second petition assailing the Secretary of Justice’s probable cause finding, he provided the CA with the existence of the first petition through the certification on non-forum shopping by disclosing the first CA petition’s pendency and noting the relevant preliminary investigation matters. The Court further pointed to private respondent’s own acknowledgment that any omission resulted from honest oversight due to confusion arising from the two CA petitions and decisions.

Because the CA Fourth Division was not acting from complete ignorance of the first case’s existence, the Supreme Court held that reversing the earlier final CA ruling after it had become final would cause injustice to petitioner. The Court also stressed that the doctrine of finality served public policy and prevented indefinite alteration of judgments at the behest of either party.

The Court’s Caveat on the Effect of Finality

Even while recognizing the finality of the CA Sixth Division’s decision quashing the search warrants, the Court made a doctrinal caveat. It clarified that finality of that decision did not mean that its underlying principle must always be applied in the same way. The Court stated that A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC did not prohibit the heads of the NBI, PNP, and ACTAF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing search warrant applications to assistant heads.

The Court relied on Spouses Marimla v. People to support this clarification. In that framework, it applied Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, which allows assistant heads and subordinates to perform duties specified by their superiors when not inconsistent with law. Thus, the Court held that the absence of a personal endorsement by the bureau head was not, by itself, necessarily fatal to the validity of search warrants where end

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 208090)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Ferdinand V. Tomas sought a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution that affirmed the Joint Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, through the Chief State Prosecutor, finding probable cause for trademark infringement and unfair competition under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293.
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group ( CIDG ) - Anti-Organized Crime Division ( AOCD ) (CIDG-AOCD) and Myrna Uy Tomas appeared as respondents in the Rule 45 petition.
The CA acted through its Fourth Division when it affirmed the Secretary of Justice’s Joint Resolution.
Earlier, the same case involving the same search warrants had been decided by the CA Sixth Division, which had granted petitioner’s certiorari and quashed the search warrants.
The Supreme Court previously denied petitioner’s petition challenging the CA Sixth Division decision, rendering that decision final and executory.
The present petition raised immutability of final judgment and forum shopping issues arising from the CA Fourth Division’s contrary handling of the same search warrant validity issue.

Key Factual Allegations

Myrna Uy Tomas filed four complaints for violations of Sections 155 and 168, in relation to Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, seeking prosecution of Ferdinand V. Tomas for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Two complaints, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2007-926 and 2007-927, also involved Federico Ladines, Jr. and Ryan T. Valdez.
Two complaints, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2007-940 and 2007-941, were filed against Ferdinand V. Tomas alone.
The PNP CIDG-AOCD presented four applications for issuance of search warrants before the RTC of Manila on October 24, 2007.
The applications were signed by P/Chief Inspector Helsin B. Walin and approved by Police Director Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief of the CIDG.
Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, Presiding Judge of RTC Manila Branch 33, issued four search warrants Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103.
The searches were conducted at FMT Merchandising on Alexander St., Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, and at 394 Cayambanan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.
The search at the FMT Merchandising premises led to the seizure of one (1) Pedrollo water pump.
The search at Barangay Cayambanan yielded large quantities and components of Pedrollo products, including empty boxes, terminal box cover, electric water pump units, unserviceable units, and gauges.
Petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion to Quash the search warrants and/or to suppress evidence, alleging that the applications violated SC Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC because endorsement/approval was allegedly not personally made by the head of the proper agency at the time of filing.
The RTC initially quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 and A07-12103, then reversed itself and later upheld all warrants after reconsideration.

Search Warrant Challenge Timeline

On January 11, 2008, the RTC partially granted petitioner’s motion and quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 and A07-12103.
On April 16, 2008, the RTC reconsidered and denied the motion in the portion that had quashed other warrants, thereby upholding the applications for search warrants.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 104029, challenging the RTC orders.
On August 16, 2011, the CA Sixth Division granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC orders, and quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103.
The CA Sixth Division held that the applications were defective for lacking the personal endorsement of the head of the PNP, as required by Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, because at the time of filing, the endorsement was not personally made by the then Chief of the PNP.
The CA also invoked a later Supreme Court clarification regarding the personal-endorsement requirement and ruled that the delegation allowed by a subsequent resolution was personal to the then PNP chief and could not be invoked by the successor for applications filed earlier.
On March 5, 2012, the Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review and the decision became final and executory, with entry in the Book of Entries of Judgments on August 16, 2012.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of Justice issued a Joint Resolution on July 24, 2009 finding probable cause against petitioner.
After denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114479, challenging the Secretary of Justice’s Joint Resolution.
On March 25, 2013, the CA Fourth Division denied petitioner’s Rule 43 petition and affirmed the Secretary of Justice’s findings.
On July 5, 2013, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Petitioner argued that the CA Fourth Division’s decision violated the fundamental rule on immutability of final judgment when it, in effect, declared that Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103 were validly issued despite the earlier final judgment of the CA Sixth Division quashing them.
Petitioner contended that the CA Fourth Division could not dismiss CA-G.R. SP No. 104029 after the Sixth Division had already rendered judgment and it had been executed.
Petitioner maintained that the final judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 104029, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, was conclusive and could not be reopened or superseded without violating immutability.
Petitioner asserted that there was no forum shopping, and he disputed the CA’s conclusion that he failed to disclose the pendency or existence of the earlier petition in the required certification.

Rulings of Lower Tribunals

The RTC first partially granted the Motion to Quash on January 11, 2008 by quashing Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 and A07-12103.
The RTC then, on April 16, 2008, reconsidered and denied the motions for lack of merit, effectively setting aside the earlier quashal for other warrants.
The CA Sixth Division reversed the RTC on certiorari and quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103, citing defect under Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC due to lack of personal endorsement by the proper agency head.
The CA Fourth Division, in the Rule 43 case, affirmed the Secretary of Justice’s Joint Resolution by upholding the validity and effect of the search warrants, holding that any defect did not necessarily render the warrants nugatory.
The CA Fourth Division also ruled that petitioner violated the rule against f