Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Savage V Taypin

    Uploaded by

    Madeleine Flores Bayani
    196 views1 page
    This case involved a search warrant issued based on a complaint of unfair competition involving design patents. The petitioners moved to quash the search warrant alleging issues involving jurisdiction, lack of certification against forum shopping, and whether a crime existed. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that: [1] the power to issue search warrants is not exclusively vested in special IPR courts; [2] the rules do not require certification against forum shopping for applications; and [3] the Intellectual Property Code repealed the penal provision for unfair competition involving design patents, so there is no crime. Therefore, the search warrant was defective and all seized property must be returned.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Savage v Taypin

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a search warrant issued based on a complaint of unfair competition involving design patents. The petitioners moved to quash the search warrant alleging issues involving jurisdiction, lack of certification against forum shopping, and whether a crime existed. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that: [1] the power to issue search warrants is not exclusively vested in special IPR courts; [2] the rules do not require certification against forum shopping for applications; and [3] the Intellectual Property Code repealed the penal provision for unfair competition involving design patents, so there is no crime. Therefore, the search warrant was defective and all seized property must be returned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    196 views1 page

    Savage V Taypin

    Uploaded by

    Madeleine Flores Bayani
    This case involved a search warrant issued based on a complaint of unfair competition involving design patents. The petitioners moved to quash the search warrant alleging issues involving jurisdiction, lack of certification against forum shopping, and whether a crime existed. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that: [1] the power to issue search warrants is not exclusively vested in special IPR courts; [2] the rules do not require certification against forum shopping for applications; and [3] the Intellectual Property Code repealed the penal provision for unfair competition involving design patents, so there is no crime. Therefore, the search warrant was defective and all seized property must be returned.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Savage v.

    Taypin
    GR No. 134217, May 11, 2000
    Bellosillo, J.:

    FACTS: Acting on a complaint lodged by private respondent Eric Ng Mendoza, president and general manager of
    Mendco Development Corporation (MENDCO), the NBI filed an application for search warrant with the Regional Trial
    Court of Cebu City. 2 The application sought the authorization to search the premises of K Angelin Export
    International located in Biasong, Talisay, Cebu, and to seize the pieces of wrought iron furniture found therein which
    were allegedly the object of unfair competition involving design patents, punishable under Art. 189 of the Revised
    Penal Code as amended.

    Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant alleging the following issues below.

    ISSUES: (1) Questions involving jurisdiction over the offense; (2) The need for certification of non-forum shopping;
    (3) The existence of the crime.

    HELD: Petition granted.

    I. Petitioners apparently misconstrued the import of the designation of Special Courts for IPR. The power to issue
    search warrants for violations of IPR has not been exclusively vested in the courts enumerated in Supreme
    Court Administrative Order No.113-95. The power to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and may be
    effected outside the territorial jurisdiction.

    II. In this case at bar, there is no allegation of forum-shopping, only failure to acquire a certification against forum-
    shopping. . The Rules of Court as amended requires such certification only from initiatory pleadings, omitting
    any mention of "applications."

    III. The Intellectual Property Code took effect on 1 January 1998. The issue involving the existence of "unfair
    competition" as a felony involving design patents, referred to in Art. 189 of the Revised Penal Code, has been
    rendered moot and academic by the repeal of the article. Although this case traces its origins to the year 1997
    or before the enactment of the IPR Code, we are constrained to invoke the provisions of the Code. Article 22 of
    the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws shall be applied retrospectively, if such application would be
    beneficial to the accused. 26 Since the IPR Code effectively obliterates the possibility of any criminal liability
    attaching to the acts alleged, then that Code must be applied here.

    Hence, 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. All property seized by virtue thereof should be returned to
    petitioners in accordance with established jurisprudence.

    You might also like