Forietrans Manufacturing Corp vs Davidoff Et. Cie Sa
G.R. No. 197482
March 6, 2017
FACTS:
Davidoff Et. Cie Sa (Davidoff) and Japan Tobacco, Inc (JTI) [collectively, respondents] are non-resident foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and Japan, respectively. They are represented in the Philippines by law firm SyCip Salazar Henandez and Gatmaitan (SyCip law firm). Respondents also retained Business Profile, inc. (BPI) as their private investigator in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, petitioner Forietrans Manufacturing Corp (FMC) is a domestic corporation with principal address at lots 5 and 7, angeles industrial park, special economic zone, brgy. Calibutbut, Bacoor, Pampanga.
BPI reported to respondents that “there were counterfeit or product imitations of Davidoff and JTI products or products which are deceivingly similar and were stored in FMC’s warehouse. Sycip then, sought assistance from the CIDG in securing search warrants to search the said warehouse. Upon investigation the CIDG confirmed the reports of BPI. With the seized items as evidence, three separate complaint-affidavits were filed before the office of the provincial prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga charging FMC and its employees with violation of republic act no 8293.
Calaquin (FMC) denies the charges stating that FMC is and eco-zone export enterprise registered with the Philippine economic Zone Authority (PEZA) and duly authorized to import and export tabacco.
In the Joint Resolution dated September 12, 2005, second assistant Provincial Prosecutor Otto B. Macabulos dismissed the criminal complaints. Macabulos found the affidavit of Jimmy Trocio, the informant/witness presented by PSI De Mesa in his application for search warrants, clearly insufficient to show probable cause to search FMC’s premises.
Respondents thereafter filed a Petition for review before then Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez. In his resolution dated febuary 10, 2006, secretary Gonzalez affirmed the ruling of prosecutor macabulos. Respondents moved for reconsideration. This, however, was denied with finality by secretary Gonzalez in his resolution dated March 27, 2006. Respondents elevated the case to the CA via A petition for Certiorari.
CA then reversed the resolutions of secretary Gonzalez. It adjudged that secretary Gonzalez acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming Prosecutor Macabulos’ finding that no probable cause exists against FMC. The petitioners filed a partial motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the CA. hence, they filed a petition to the Supreme Court. Where the the SC denies the petition for lack of merit and the decision dated march 31, 2011 and resolution dated July 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals were Affirmed. The Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga was then Directed to file information against petitioners for violations of Infringement and False Designation of origin.
ISSUE:
Was the CA correct that grave abuse of discretion was committed by Secretary Gonzalez leading to the reversal of his decision?
HELD:
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal action, is defined as such facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. Only prima facie evidence is required or that which is, on its face, good and sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party’s claim or defense; and which, if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Thus, probable cause with and only of itself is not sufficient as a basis to dismiss a case where evidences was presented and can be better resolved in the course of the trial.
By: Jean Paul Bartocillo
No comments:
Post a Comment