6/23/2017 G.R.No.

165306

TodayisFriday,June23,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.165306September20,2005

MANLYSPORTWEARMANUFACTURING,INC.,Petitioners,
vs.
DADODETTEENTERPRISESAND/ORHERMESSPORTSCENTER,Respondent.

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1underRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCivilProcedureassailstheJuly13,
2004 decision2 of the Court of Appeals3 in CAG.R. SP No. 79887 and its September 15, 2004 resolution4
denyingreconsiderationthereof.

Thefactsareasfollows:

OnMarch14,2003,SpecialInvestigatorEliezerP.SalcedooftheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)applied
for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, based on the information that
Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center were in possession of goods, the copyright of which
belongedtoManlySportswearMfg.,Inc.(MANLY).5

After finding reasonable grounds that a violation of Sections 172 and 217 of Republic Act (RA) No. 82936 has
been committed, Judge Estrella T. Estrada of RTCQuezon City, Branch 83, issued on March 17, 2003 Search
WarrantNo.4044(03).7

Respondentsthereaftermovedtoquashandannulthesearchwarrantcontendingthatthesameisinvalidsince
therequisitesforitsissuancehavenotbeencompliedwith.Theyinsistedthatthesportinggoodsmanufactured
by and/or registered in the name of MANLY are ordinary and common hence, not among the classes of work
protectedunderSection172ofRA8293.

On June 10, 2003, the trial court granted the motion to quash and declared Search Warrant No. 4044(03) null
andvoidbasedonitsfindingthatthecopyrightedproductsofMANLYdonotappeartobeoriginalcreationsand
were being manufactured and distributed by different companies locally and abroad under various brands, and
thereforeunqualifiedforprotectionunderSection172ofRA8293.Moreover,MANLYscertificatesofregistrations
wereissuedonlyin2002,whereastherewerecertificatesofregistrationsforthesamesportsarticleswhichwere
issuedearlierthanMANLYs,thusfurthernegatingtheclaimthatitscopyrightedproductswereoriginalcreations.8

On August 11, 2003, the trial court denied9 MANLYs motion for reconsideration. Hence it filed a petition for
certiorari10beforetheCourtofAppealswhichwasdeniedforlackofmerit.Theappellatecourtfoundthatthetrial
court correctly granted the motion to quash and that its ruling in the ancillary proceeding did not preempt the
findings of the intellectual property court as it did not resolve with finality the status or character of the seized
items.

AfterdenialofitsmotionforreconsiderationonSeptember15,2004,MANLYfiledtheinstantpetitionforreview
oncertiorariraisingthesoleissueofwhetherornottheCourtofAppealserredinfindingthatthetrialcourtdidnot
gravelyabuseitsdiscretionindeclaringinthehearingforthequashalofthesearchwarrantthatthecopyrighted
productsofMANLYarenotoriginalcreationssubjecttotheprotectionofRA8293.

Wedenythepetition.

The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the trial judges in the exercise of their judicial
function.11 As such, the power to quash the same also rests solely with them. After the judge has issued a

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_165306_2005.html 1/4
6/23/2017 G.R.No.165306

warrant,heisnotprecludedtosubsequentlyquashthesame,ifhefindsuponreevaluationoftheevidencethat
noprobablecauseexists.

OurrulinginSolidTriangleSalesCorp.v.Sheriff,RTC,Q.C.,Br.9312isinstructive,thus:

Inherent in the courts power to issue search warrants is the power to quash warrants already issued. In this
connection, this Court has ruled that the motion to quash should be filed in the court that issued the warrant
unlessacriminalcasehasalreadybeeninstitutedinanothercourt,inwhichcase,themotionshouldbefiledwith
thelatter.TherulinghassincebeenincorporatedinRule126oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure[.]

Intheinstantcase,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitentertainedthemotiontoquash
consideringthatnocriminalactionhasyetbeeninstitutedwhenitwasfiled.Thetrialcourtalsoproperlyquashed
thesearchwarrantitearlierissuedafterfindinguponreevaluationoftheevidencethatnoprobablecauseexists
tojustifyitsissuanceinthefirstplace.Asruledbythetrialcourt,thecopyrightedproductsdonotappeartobe
originalcreationsofMANLYandarenotamongtheclassesofworkenumeratedunderSection172ofRA8293.
The trial court, thus, may not be faulted for overturning its initial assessment that there was probable cause in
viewofitsinherentpowertoissuesearchwarrantsandtoquashthesame.Noobjectionmaybevalidlyposedto
anorderquashingawarrantalreadyissuedasthecourtmustbeprovidedwiththeopportunitytocorrectitselfof
anerrorunwittinglycommitted,or,withlikeeffect,toallowtheaggrievedpartythechancetoconvincethecourt
thatitsrulingiserroneous.

Moreover,thetrialcourtwasactingwithinboundswhenitruled,inanancillaryproceeding,thatthecopyrighted
productsofpetitionerarenotoriginalcreations.Thisisbecauseinthedeterminationoftheexistenceofprobable
cause for the issuance or quashal of a warrant, it is inevitable that the court may touch on issues properly
threshedoutinaregularproceeding.Insodoing,itdoesnotusurpthepowerof,muchlesspreclude,thecourt
frommakingafinaljudicialdeterminationoftheissuesinafullblowntrial.Consequently,MANLYsassertionthat
the trial courts order quashing the warrant preempted the finding of the intellectual property court has no legal
basis.

AspertinentlyheldinSolidTriangleSalesCorp.v.Sheriff,RTC,Q.C.,Br.93:13

Whenthecourt,indeterminingprobablecauseforissuingorquashingasearchwarrant,findsthatnooffensehas
beencommitted,itdoesnotinterferewithorencroachupontheproceedingsinthepreliminaryinvestigation.The
courtdoesnotobligetheinvestigatingofficernottofileaninformationforthecourtsrulingthatnocrimeexistsis
onlyforpurposesofissuingorquashingthewarrant.Thisdoesnot,aspetitionerswouldliketobelieve,constitute
a usurpation of the executive function. Indeed, to shirk from this duty would amount to an abdication of a
constitutionalobligation.

...

...Thefindingbythecourtthatnocrimeexistsdoesnotprecludetheauthorizedofficerconductingthepreliminary
investigationfrommakinghisowndeterminationthatacrimehasbeencommittedandthatprobablecauseexists
forpurposesoffilingtheinformation.

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the trial courts finding that the seized products are not
copyrightablewasmerelypreliminaryasitdidnotfinallyandpermanentlyadjudicateonthestatusandcharacter
oftheseizeditems.MANLYcouldstillfileaseparatecopyrightinfringementsuitagainsttherespondentsbecause
theorderfortheissuanceorquashalofawarrantisnotresjudicata.

Thus,inVlasonsEnterprisesCorporationv.CourtofAppeals14weheldthat:

Theproceedingfortheseizureofpropertyinvirtueofasearchwarrantdoesnotendwiththeactualtakingofthe
propertybytheproperofficersanditsdelivery,usuallyconstructive,tothecourt.Theorderfortheissuanceofthe
warrantisnotafinaloneandcannotconstituteresjudicata.Suchanorderdoesnotascertainandadjudicatethe
permanentstatusorcharacteroftheseizedproperty.Byitsverynature,itisprovisional,interlocutory.Itismerely
thefirststepintheprocesstodeterminethecharacterandtitleoftheproperty.Thatdeterminationisdoneinthe
criminalactioninvolvingthecrimeorcrimesinconnectionwithwhichthesearchwarrantwasissued.Hence,such
acriminalactionshouldbeprosecuted,orcommencedifnotyetinstituted,andprosecuted.Theoutcomeofthe
criminalactionwilldictatethedispositionoftheseizedproperty

WehavealsoruledinChingv.Salinas,Sr.,etal.15that:

The RTC had jurisdiction to delve into and resolve the issue whether the petitioners utility models are
copyrightableand,ifso,whetherheistheownerofacopyrightoverthesaidmodels.Itbearsstressingthatupon
the filing of the application for search warrant, the RTC was dutybound to determine whether probable cause
existed,inaccordancewithSection4,Rule126oftheRulesofCriminalProcedure[.]

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_165306_2005.html 2/4
6/23/2017 G.R.No.165306

Further,thecopyrightcertificatesissuedinfavorofMANLYconstitutemerelyprimafacieevidenceofvalidityand
ownership.However,nopresumptionofvalidityiscreatedwhereotherevidenceexistthatmaycastdoubtonthe
copyright validity. Hence, where there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted products are not original creations
but are readily available in the market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality will not be
presumedandthetrialcourtmayproperlyquashtheissuedwarrantforlackofprobablecause.

Besides,nocopyrightaccruesinfavorofMANLYdespiteissuanceofthecertificatesofregistrationanddeposit16
pursuanttoSection2,Rule7oftheCopyrightsSafeguardsandRegulations17whichstates:

Sec.2EffectsofRegistrationandDepositofWork.Theregistrationanddepositoftheworkispurelyforrecording
thedateofregistrationanddepositoftheworkandshallnotbeconclusiveastocopyrightownershiportheterm
ofthecopyrightsortherightsofthecopyrightowner,includingneighboringrights.

Atmost,thecertificatesofregistrationanddepositissuedbytheNationalLibraryandtheSupremeCourtLibrary
serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work but do not confer any right or title upon the
registeredcopyrightownerorautomaticallyputhisworkundertheprotectivemantleofthecopyrightlaw.Itisnot
aconclusiveproofofcopyrightownership.Asitis,nonregistrationanddepositoftheworkwithintheprescribed
periodonlymakesthecopyrightownerliabletopayafine.18

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheJuly13,2004decisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.
79887andresolutiondatedSeptember15,2004,areAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO

AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.

ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGANTONIOT.CARPIO

AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA

AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.

ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.1346.

2CARollo,pp.381388.

3 Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred in by Associate Justices
GodardoA.JacintoandEdgardoP.Cruz.

4Rollo,pp.910.

5CARollo,pp.6870.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_165306_2005.html 3/4
6/23/2017 G.R.No.165306
6TheIntellectualPropertyCodeofthePhilippines.

7CARollo,pp.101102.

8Id.at5962.

9Id.at5154.

10Id.at250.

11Section2,ArticleIII,1987Constitution.

12422Phil.72,83[2001].

13Id.at8687.

14No.L61688,28October1987,155SCRA186,191.

15G.R.No.161295,29June2005.

16Section191,RANo.8293provides:

Sec. 191. Registration and Deposit with National Library and the Supreme Court Library After the first
publicdisseminationofperformancebyauthorityofthecopyrightownerofaworkfallingunderSubsections
172.1, 172.2 and 172.3 of this Act, there shall, for the purpose of completing the records of the National
Library and the Supreme Court Library, within three (3) weeks, be registered and deposited with it, by
personaldeliveryorbyregisteredmail,two(2)completecopiesorreproductionsoftheworkinsuchform
as the directors of said libraries may prescribe. A certificate of deposit shall be issued for which the
prescribedfeeshallbecollectedandthecopyrightownershallbeexemptfrommakingadditionaldepositof
the works with the National Library and the Supreme Court Library under other laws. If, within three (3)
weeks after receipt by the copyright owner of a written demand from the directors for such deposit, the
required copies or reproductions are not delivered and the fee is not paid, the copyright owner shall be
liabletopayafineequivalenttotherequiredfeepermonthofdelayandtopaytotheNationalLibraryand
the Supreme Court Library the amount of the retail price of the best edition of the work. Only the above
mentioned classes of work shall be accepted for deposit by the National Library and the Supreme Court
Library.

17Issuedon13August1999pursuanttoSec.228ofRANo.8293whichprovides:

Sec.228.PublicRecordsThesectionordivisionoftheNationalLibrarychargedwithreceivingcopiesand
instrumentsdepositedandwithkeepingrecordsrequiredunderthisActandeverythinginitshallbeopento
public inspection. The Director of the National Library is empowered to issue such safeguards and
regulationsasmaybenecessarytoimplementthisSectionandotherprovisionsofthisAct.

18Section3,Rule7,CopyrightsSafeguardsandRegulations.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_165306_2005.html 4/4