### Facts:
In May 1997, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) initiated a probe following a complaint by NBA Properties, Inc., against Melbarose R. Sasot and Allandale R. Sasot for the possible breach of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code concerning unfair competition. NBA Properties, Inc., a U.S. corporation, holds trademarks and names of various NBA teams utilized on numerous garment products. The NBI disclosed that the Sasots were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit NBA merchandise.
Rick Welts, acting for NBA Properties, Inc. via a Special Power of Attorney and a Complaint-Affidavit in New York, led to a July 15, 1998, recommendation for prosecution by Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez. The Information charged the Sasots with unfair competition, resulting in damage to NBA Properties, Inc.
Before arraignment, the Sasots moved to quash the Information, citing non-conformity with legal provisions and questioning the complainant’s standing given its foreign nature and the purported originality of their products. The RTC denied the motion, supported by the argument that the crime of unfair competition is against the State, rendering the complainant’s capacity irrelevant.
The Sasots then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed on the grounds that certiorari was not the proper recourse against a motion to quash’s denial. The CA’s decision was affirmed upon the Sasots’ request for reconsideration.
Consequently, the Sasots appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues concerning the ability of a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines to maintain an action for unfair competition, among other points.
### Issues:
1. Can a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines sue for unfair competition?
2. May an officer of a foreign corporation act on behalf of the corporation without explicit board authority?
3. Does a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines and seeking protection for an unregistered emblem qualify for Philippine legal protection?
4. Did the Regional Trial Court correctly assume jurisdiction over the case and the persons of the accused?
5. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition?
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for several reasons. It reiterated that certiorari was not the appropriate remedy for the denial of a motion to quash and emphasized that the trial should proceed with the presentation of the special defenses involved. The Court also addressed the misdirected focus on procedural deficiencies and the complainant’s capacity to sue as grounds for quashing the Information. Moreover, the Court highlighted that since the crime of unfair competition is a public crime, the State is the principal injured party, making the complainant’s capacity to sue irrelevant. Additionally, arguments concerning the Sasots’ innocence of unfair competition were deemed better suited for trial. Overall, the Court found no reason to quash the Information against the petitioners.
### Doctrine:
The Supreme Court underscored the doctrine that the crime of unfair competition is an act against the State, where the state is the primary injured party. It reaffirmed that procedural concerns such as a defect in the complaint or the complainant’s capacity to sue are not grounds to quash an Information. The appropriate recourse for addressing these issues is through trial and not through a certiorari petition.
### Class Notes:
– **Unfair Competition under the Revised Penal Code**: A public crime primarily against the State, regardless of the private right violated.
– **Motion to Quash**: Not appropriate for addressing procedural defects or questioning the complainant’s capacity in criminal cases; the trial is the correct venue.
– **Certiorari and Denial of Motion to Quash**: Filing a certiorari petition is not the proper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash an information; the accused must proceed to trial and can appeal if necessary.
– **Foreign Corporations’ Right to Sue**: The capacity of a foreign corporation to sue for unfair competition in the Philippines hinges on the protection of intellectual property rights under international commitments, not on its business presence or registration in the Philippines.
### Historical Background:
This case revolves around international intellectual property law principles and the Philippines’ commitment to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The decision underscores the Philippines’ adherence to its international obligations concerning the protection of intellectual property rights, even for foreign corporations. It reflects on the evolving legal landscape regarding global trade and intellectual property rights protection within the parameters of national laws and international agreements.
Leave a Reply