SAVAGE V TAYPIN a) Crime they were accused of did not exist

MAY 11 2000 | BELLOSILLO, J. b) Issuance of the warrant was not based on probable cause
Petitioners, Kenneth Roy Savage/K Angelin Export Trading, owned and managed by c) Judge failed to ask the witnesses searching questions
Gemma Demoral-Savage d) The warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized
Respondents, Judge Aproniano Taypin, Presiding Judge RTC Cebu City, Cebu e) Warrant applied for without a certification against forum shopping
Provincial Prosecutors Office, National Bureau of Investigation, Juanita Ng Mendoza, (in Supplemental Motion to Quash)
Mendco Development Corporation, Alfredo Sabjon and Dante Sosmea

ISSUES:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
1. WON respondent court had jurisdiction over the offense? YES
Mendoza filed a complaint against petitioners for unfair competition involving design
a. RTC had territorial jurisdiction to issue the search warrant
patents punishable under Art 189 RPC. NBI filed application for search warrant with
RTC seeking authorization to search premises and seize pieces of wrought iron b. The power to issue search warrants for violation of IPR has not
furniture Judge Taypin issued the search warrant, which was executed by the NBI the been exclusively vested in the courts enumerated in SC Admin
following day. Petitioners moved to quash search warrant alleging (1) RTC had no Order 113-95
jurisdiction over the offense; and (2) the crime alleged did not exist.
2. WON there is the need for a certification of non-forum shopping? NO
The Court ruled that RTC had territorial jurisdiction to issue search warrant. SC Admin
Order 113-95 only specified which court can try and decide cases involving
3. WON unfair competition involving design patents punishable under Art
violations of IPR Code. HOWEVER, the Court ruled that the crime alleged did not
189 of the RPC exists? MOOT AND ACADEMIC (BECAUSE OF
exist due to effectivity of IPR Code. Crime alleged was unfair competition involving
EFFECTIVITY OF IPR CODE)
design patents, which does not fall under provisions of IPR Code on unfair
competition. Alleged acts constitute Patent Infringement. In the issuance of search
warrants, ROC requires a finding of probable cause in connection with one specific RATIO:
offense. Since there is no crime to speak of, the search warrant is defective on its 1 Court consistently ruled that a search warrant is merely a process
face. Since the search warrant is null and void, all property seized by virtue thereof issued by the court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction and not a
should be returned. criminal action, which it may entertain pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
Authority to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and may
FACTS be affected outside their territorial jurisdiction.
Eric Mendoza filed a complaint against the petitioners. Supervising Agent IN CASE AT BAR, premises searched located in Talisay, Cebu are
Jose Monsanto of NBI filed an application for search warrant with RTC well within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent court.
Cebu seeking the authorization to search the premises of K Angelin
Export International and to seize the pieces of wrought iron Special Courts for the Intellectual Property Rights (Admin Order No 113-95)
furniture found therein which were allegedly the object of unfair merely specified which court could try and decide cases involving
competition involving design patents. The search warrant was issued violations of IPR.
by Judge Taypin and executed the following day by NBI agents. It did not and could not vest exclusive jurisdiction with regards to all
The petitioners moved to quash the search warrant [DENIED] alleging matters (issuance of search warrants and other judicial processes)
that: in any one court.
 JURISDICTION = substantive law (BP Blg 129) not procedural rule PROVISIONS OF IPR CODE MENTIONED IN CASE
much less by admin order Unfair Competition
Sec. 168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to
good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he
4. ROC requires such certification only for initiatory pleadings, omitting
deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such
any mention of applications.
goodwill, or shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of
No certification required from applications of search warrants; unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.
absence of such certification will not result in the dismissal of an
application for search warrant. Sec. 168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection
against unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:
5. Since the IPR Code took effect on Jan 1 1998, issue involving existence (a) Any person who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance
of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods
of unfair competition as a felony involving design patents referred to in
themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained,
Art 189 of RPC has been rendered moot and academic by the repeal of
or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance
the article. which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods
Search warrant cannot be issued by virtue of a possible violation of offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual
IPR Code manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such
o IN CASE AT BAR, assailed acts specifically alleged were the appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate
manufacture and fabrication of wrought iron furniture trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor
similar to patented by MENDCO, without securing any engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;
(a) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means
license or patent for the same, for the purpose of deceiving
calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of
or defrauding MENDCO and the buying public. another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or
No mention of any crime of unfair competition involving design patents (b) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who
in the controlling provisions on Unfair Competition of IPR Code (Sec shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to
168.2 & 168.3) discredit goods, businesses or services of another.
o Alleged acts constitute patent infringement (Sec 76 IPR)
Patent Infringement
Sec. 76. Civil Action for Infringement -
Enactment of RA 8293 did not result in the reenactment of Art 189 of
76.1 The making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing a patented
RPC (Unclear whether the crime exists at all)
product or importing a patented product or a product obtained directly or
o SINCE AMBIGUOUS, strictly construe statute against the indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented process without
State and liberally in favor of the accused authorization of the patentee constitutes patent infringement

Since there is no crime to speak of, the search warrant does not even begin
to fulfill these stringent requirements and is therefore defective on its face.
Since the assailed search warrant is null and void, all property seized by
virtue thereof should be returned to petitioners in accordance with
established jurisprudence.