Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc.

Vs Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports


GR No. 165306, September 20, 2005


The NBI secured a search warrant on March 14, 2003 from the RTC to act upon the
information that respondents were in possession of goods copyright of which belongs
to the petitioner. Finding reasonable grounds in violation of Section 172 and 217 of
RZ 8293 a search warrant was issued.
Respondents move to quash and annul the search warrant contending it is invalid and
the requisites for its issuance are not complied with. They insist common and not
among the classes protected under RA 8293.
The court granted the motion to quash declaring the search warrant null and void
because there were certificates of registrations issued earlier than MANLY for the
same sporting goods under various brands thereby negating the fact that their
products are copyrighted and original creations.
Motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court sustaining the lower
courts decision thus instant petition for review for certiorari.


Whether or not the certificate of registration in favor of MANLY sustains the action
against the respondents.


The court ruled that the petitioner is not protected by the copyright law despite the
issuance of the copyright certificate of registration as it merely gives prima facie evidence
of the validity and ownership. Therefore if the there are sufficient evidence that the
copyrighted products are not original creations and are readily available in the market
under various brands, validity and originality will not be presumed therefore the trial
court has the right to quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause. Moreover no
copyright accrues to the petitioner since Sec. 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards and
Regulations provides that the registration and deposit of work is purely for recording the
date of registration and is not conclusive as to the copyright ownership. It is not a proof
of copyright ownership and non-payment for registration within the prescribed period
shall only make the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.