SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 213400, August 04, 2021
ELIDAD KHO AND VIOLETA KHO, Petitioners, v. SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING & CO., INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 1, 2013 Decision2 and June 30, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117835, which set aside and annulled the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) July 21, 20104 and November 18, 20105 Orders in Criminal Case No. 00-183261, directed the RTC to reinstate the Information for Unfair Competition before it and denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, respectively.
Factual Antecedents:
The material and relevant facts are as follows:
Petitioners Elidad Kho (Elidad) and Violeta Kho (Violeta) were charged with Unfair Competition by respondent Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc., (Summerville) before the City Prosecutor's Office of Manila. On May 31, 2000, a Resolution6 was issued by the City Prosecutor's Office of Manila recommending the filing of an unfair competition case against petitioners. Thus, an Information7 for Unfair Competition was filed against petitioners before the RTC Branch 24 docketed as Crim. Case No. 00-183261.8
The charge as contained in the Information for Unfair Competition provides, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That on or about January 10, 2000 and for some time prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, then engaged in a business known as KEC Cosmetic Laboratory, located at 2407 Topacio Street and 2412 Raymundo Street, San Andres, this City, in an unfair competition, and for the purpose of deceiving/defrauding the public in general and the Summerville General Merchandising and Co. (Summerville) which is engaged, among others, in the importation and distribution of facial cream products with the trademark known as Chin Chun Su, herein represented by Victor Chua, its General Manager, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and jointly sell/dispose and/or cause to be sold/disposed to the public facial cream products using tools, implements and equipments in its production, labeling and distribution, which give and depict the general appearance of the Chin Chun Su facial cream products and likely influence the purchasers to believe that the same are those of the said Summerville.Petitioners filed a Petition for Review10 before the Department of Justice (DOJ) assailing the May 31, 2000 Resolution of the City Prosecutor's Office of Manila. The DOJ affirmed the May 31, 2000 Resolution in a Resolution11 dated August 17, 2000. However, upon motion for reconsideration12 of petitioners, the DOJ issued the June 18, 2001 Resolution13 which recalled and set aside the August 17, 2000 Resolution but did not rule on the propriety of the complaint. The June 18, 2001 Resolution merely stated that the case would be further reviewed and the corresponding resolution would be issued. Meanwhile, petitioners' arraignment14 pushed through on October 11, 2000 where they refused to enter a plea. Thus, pleas of not guilty were entered for them.15
CONTRARY TO LAW.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Manila: |
WHEREFORE, premises considered in compliance to the resolution of the Supreme Court dated 07 August 2007, after evaluating and assessing the merits of the case, this Court finds that no probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial. Let the cash bond posted by the accused be released.In arriving at the conclusion that no probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial for unfair competition, the RTC Branch 46 found that the accused never deceived the public into believing that the medical facial cream that they sold which is contained in a pink oval-shaped container with trademark of "Chin Chun Su", were the same as those being imported by respondent Summerville; and petitioners acted in good faith without intent to deceive the public.
Notify the accused and the private complainant of this Order.
x x x
SO ORDERED.34chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Order dated July 21, 2010 and the Order dated November 18, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Manila in Criminal Case No. 00-183261, are SET ASIDE and ANNULLED.The appellate court found that RTC Branch 46 committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it found no probable cause to indict petitioners for unfair competition; petitioners are charged with unfair competition and petitioners' product is confusingly similar to that of respondent; the ordinary purchaser would not normally inquire about the manufacturer of the product and therefore, petitioners' act of labeling their product with the manufacturer's name would not exculpate them from liability, especially as both products of petitioners and respondent bore the name "Chin Chun Su," in oval shaped containers;42 petitioners may have the right to use the oval-shaped container for their medicated facial cream but the mark "Chin Chun Su" imprinted thereon is beyond the authority of petitioners' copyright and patent registration; and there is no double jeopardy as it was even the Court in G.R. No. 163741 which directed the Manila RTC to independently evaluate the case to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold the accused for tria1.43
Upon the finality of this Decision, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 46, is directed to reinstate the Information for Unfair Competition under Section 168.3 (a) of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as 'The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines,' and proceed de novo with Criminal Case No. 00-183261.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.41chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Simply put, the threshold issue before Us is whether or not the appellate court erred when it found probable cause to indict petitioners for Unfair Competition.I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN FINDING LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONERS.II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT CORRECTED ERRORS OF JUDGMENT IMPROPERLY RAISED IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND VIOLATED PETITIONERS' RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHEN IT ORDERED THE CONDUCT OF TRIAL DE NOVO.46chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The term probable cause does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.It bears to stress that -
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.50chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a judge must always proceed with caution in dismissing cases due to lack of probable cause, considering the preliminary nature of the evidence before it. It is only when he or she finds that the evidence on hand absolutely fails to support a finding of probable cause that he or she can dismiss the case. On the other hand, if a judge finds probable cause, he or she must not hesitate to proceed with x x x trial in order that justice may be served.51chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn the present case, We find that the acts complained of constituted probable cause to charge them with Unfair Competition.
SECTION 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. - x x xThe essential elements of an action for unfair competition are: (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.52 The confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. Likelihood of confusion of goods or business is a relative concept, to be determined only according to peculiar circumstances of each case.53 The element of intent to deceive and to defraud may be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public.54
x x x
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:
(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 themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose; x x x
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 3-31.
2 Id. at 42-58; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Elihu A. Ybañez.
3 Id. at 59-60.
4 Id. at 84-101.
5 Id. at 102-110.
6 CA rollo, pp. 61-64.
7Rollo, p. 34.
8 Id. at 33-34.
9 Id. at 7, 34.
10 CA rollo, p. 4.
11 Id. at 77-83.
12 Id. at 4.
13 Id.
14Rollo, p. 8.
15 Id.
16 CA rollo, pp. 84-92.
17Rollo, p. 35.
18 Id. 6-8, 33-35.
19 Id. at 36.
20 Id.
21 CA rollo, pp. 160-161.
22Rollo, pp. 36-37.
23 CA rollo, pp. 145-153.
24 Id. at 167-168.
25 Id. at 185.
26Rollo, pp. 35-36.
27Rollo, p. 33.
28 Id. at 40.
29 Id. at 9.
30 Id. at 9, 40.
31 Id. at 39-40.
32 Id. at 43, 84, 89.
33 Id. at 84-101.
34 Id. at 101.
35 Id. at 102-103.
36 Id. at 102-110.
37 Id. at 61-68.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 111-128.
40 Id. at 42-58.
41 Id. at 57.
42 Id. at 49-51.
43 Id. at 54-57.
44 Id. at 72-82.
45 Id. at 59-60.
46 Id. at 11.
47 Id. at 84-101.
48 Id. at 102-110.
49Maza v. Turla, 805 Phil. 756, 756 (2017).
50 Imingan v. The Office of the Honorable Ombudsman, G.R. No. 226420, March 4, 2020, citing Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Hon. Casimiro, 768 Phil. 429 (2015).
51Mendoza v. People, 733 Phil. 603, 615, (2014).
52 Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, Ltd. v. Paperone, Inc., G.R. Nos. 213365-66, December 10, 2018.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55Rollo, p. 49.
56 Id. at 49-50.
57Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, Ltd. v. Paperone, Inc., supra.
58Condrada v. People, 446 Phil. 635, 641, (2003).
59Rollo, p. 33.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 39.
62 Id. at 40.cralawredlibrary