The Supreme Court ruled that Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), not Municipal Trial Courts, have the authority to handle cases involving violations of intellectual property rights. This decision ensures that cases of unfair competition, like the sale of counterfeit goods, are tried in the appropriate courts with specialized knowledge, reinforcing the protection of intellectual property rights holders.
Protecting Brands: Can Lower Courts Decide on Trademark Violations?
This case revolves around Bausch & Lomb, Inc., the maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses, filing a complaint against Andrea Tan, Clarita Llamas, Victor Espina, and Luisa Espina for selling counterfeit Ray-Ban sunglasses. The legal question at hand is whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) has jurisdiction over violations of intellectual property rights, specifically unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. The initial court decision favored the accused, stating the lower court had jurisdiction, thus prompting Bausch & Lomb to seek recourse from the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari because the respondent failed to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order granting the motion to quash. They also contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the offense of unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing its power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, as granted by Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution. This rule-making power is limited to ensure the rules provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, are uniform for all courts of the same grade, and do not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 113-95 designated special intellectual property courts to promote the efficient administration of justice and ensure the speedy disposition of intellectual property cases. A.O. No. 104-96 transferred jurisdiction over such crimes from the MTC and MTCC to the RTC and gave the Supreme Court the authority to designate certain branches of the RTC to exclusively handle special cases. This transfer of jurisdiction did not affect the substantive rights of the petitioners; the administrative orders did not change the definition or scope of the crime of unfair competition with which petitioners were charged. Therefore, both administrative orders have the force and effect of law, having been validly issued by the Supreme Court.
SEC. 23. Special Jurisdiction to try special cases. – The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and /or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
The trial court should not have allowed the petitioners to collaterally attack the validity of A.O. Nos. 113-95 and 104-96 when resolving the pending incidents of the motion to transfer and motion to quash. There is a legal presumption of validity of these laws and rules, and unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands. Thus, the trial court’s order was consequently null and void. Due to A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, which consolidated the intellectual property courts and commercial SEC courts, the case was transferred to Branch 11, RTC, Cebu City, the designated special commercial court in Region VII.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was determining which court, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), had jurisdiction over cases involving violations of intellectual property rights, specifically unfair competition. |
| What did the Supreme Court decide? | The Supreme Court affirmed that the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) have the exclusive and original jurisdiction to try and decide intellectual property cases, reinforcing the administrative orders that designated special courts for these matters. |
| What is unfair competition under the Revised Penal Code? | Unfair competition, as described in Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, involves actions such as the fraudulent registration of trademarks, trade names, or service marks, fraudulent designation of origin, and false description, all intended to deceive the public. |
| What is the significance of Administrative Order No. 113-95? | Administrative Order No. 113-95 designated specific courts to handle intellectual property rights violations, ensuring that these cases would be managed efficiently and with the necessary expertise. |
| Why was the case initially dismissed by the trial court? | The trial court initially dismissed the case, asserting that it lacked jurisdiction and that the penalty for the alleged violation fell within the jurisdiction of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts. |
| How did the Court of Appeals respond to the trial court’s decision? | The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, asserting that the case should be transferred to Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, designated to handle intellectual property cases. |
| What role did Administrative Order No. 104-96 play in this case? | Administrative Order No. 104-96 supported the transfer of jurisdiction over intellectual property cases from the MTC and MTCC to the RTC, clarifying which courts should handle such matters. |
| What happened to the case after the Supreme Court’s decision? | Following the Supreme Court’s affirmation, the case was transferred to Branch 11 of the RTC in Cebu City, which is designated as the special commercial court in Region VII, for trial and decision. |
In summary, this case clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries for intellectual property rights violations, affirming the competence of Regional Trial Courts to handle such cases. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of protecting intellectual property and ensuring that cases are heard in specialized courts capable of addressing the complexities involved.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ANDREA TAN, ET AL. VS. BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., G.R. NO. 148420, December 15, 2005
Leave a Reply