You are on page 1of 6

Case Title: MANOLO P. SAMSON, petitioner, vs. HON. REYNALDO B.

DAWAY, in his
capacity
as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and CATERPILLAR, INC., respondents. (G.R. Nos. 160054-55, July 21,
2004)
Facts:
The petitioner, owner/proprietor of ITTI Shoes/Mano Shoes Manufactuirng
Corporation,
allegedly sold or offers the sale of garment product using the trademark
“Caterpillar” to the
prejudice of Caterpillar, Inc., private respondent in this case. The respondent filed
the case with
the RTC. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense
charged
contending that the case should be filed with the MTC because violation of unfair
competition is
penalized with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years under RA 7691.
Issue:
Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases for violation of intellectual
property
rights?
Ruling of the Court:
The SC held that under Section 163 of the IPC, actions for unfair competition shall
be brought
before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws. The law
contemplated
in Section 163 of IPC is RA 166 otherwise known as the Trademark Law. Section 27
of the
Trademark Law provides that jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered
marks, unfair
competition, false designation of origin and false description or representation, is
lodged with the
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court). Since RA 7691 is a general law and
IPC in
relation to Trademark Law is a special law, the latter shall prevail. Actions for unfair
competition
therefore should be filed with the RTC.

The court also cites section 14 which states: “Section 14. The moneydeposited shall be considered .now Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. he committed another crime while out onbail. However this was denied. cityor municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court. The case came to the SC as a petition for certiorari filed by Anita Esteban. She cites that under Sec 19. – The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial. he was acquiredbecause of the subsequent case filed against him 2. so was her motionfor reconsideration. Alhambra G. originally posted the bail for Gerardo. sister in law of theaccused. she got "fed up". to reverse the two petitions for the annulment of cash bail of Gerardo Estebanamounting to P20.2. and that the issue is one of "first impression". Deposit of cash as bail. Anita now pleas that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack of jurisdiction. the bail may be cancelled uponsurrender of the accused.3. Upon submission of a proper certificateof deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of Section 2 of this Rule.ISSUE: WON Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it refused to cancel the bail upon petition of AnitaHELD: No1. No. the cash bail cannot be cancelled because Gerardo was notsurrendered for the four criminal cases he was originally charged with. or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case.R. however. 135012 Ponente: Sandoval-GutierrezFACTS:1.Esteban vs. Anita. and moved for the cancellation of the posted money to the court andsurrendered the accused to the City Jail Warden.000 each. Anita misapplies the provision. the accused shall be discharged from custody.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT A CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGES BASED ON AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION FALLING UNDER ARTICLE 32. between the accused and the third party (the one who posted Hambon vs CA G. the criminal case (Serious Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence) filed previously against the respondent was dismissed by the court for petitioner’s lack of interest. 1985. on the grounds that the Hambon failed to file the civil case. No.R. Hence. shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made thedeposit . However. 2003 FACTS: Herein respondent filed a complaint for damages against respondent for the injuries and expenses he sustained when the latter’s truck bumped him that night of December 9. 122150 March 17. THE FAILURE TO MAKE RESERVATION BEING DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS DISMISSED BEFORE THE PROSECUTION STARTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR FAILURE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT TO APPEAR DESPITE NOTICE HELD: . 34 AND 2176 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE BE DULY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MAKE RESERVATION TO FILE A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE FILED ARISING FROM THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION OF THE ACCUSED PURSUANT TO RULE 111. In the cited caseof Esler vs.” (Underscoring supplied) A cash bond is treated as the money of the accused (even if it was supplied by another person in his behalf). The money of the accused shall than applied as payment for anyfine or cost imposed by the court. The dismissal of the criminal case also includes the dismissal of the civil case. Trial Court rendered decision in favor of petitioner. it is impliedly instituted with the Criminal case. if any. It is treated in the nature of a lien. Respondent alleges that the dismissal of criminal case includes that of the civil action. Court of Appeals reversed the decision. SECTION 1 OF THE RULES OF COURT.as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs. 33. Ledesma.while the excess.

diminish or defeat substantive rights. Thus. 1761-R for damages subsequently filed by him without prior reservation should be dismissed. . For that matter the Revised Penal Code. the 1988 amendment of the rule explicitly requires reservation of the civil action. to simplify the work of the trial court. to prevent delays. Contrary to private respondent's contention. the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants. Having failed to do so. otherwise they will de deemed to have been instituted with the criminal case. yet no one has ever questioned the rule that such action must be reserved before it may be brought separately. gives the offended party the right to bring a separate civil action. to clear congested dockets. Far from altering substantive rights. Civil Case No. 2049. but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of procedure.chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE. and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 8. is AFFIRMED in toto . herein petitioner Hambon should have reserved his right to separately institute the civil action for damages in Criminal Case No.. Peralta": ‘. The requirement is merely procedural in nature. . by providing in Art. to guard against oppression and abuse. 100 that any person criminally liable is also civilly liable. the requirement that before a separate civil action may be brought it must be reserved does not impair. the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. in short.1quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. . While the Abellana case ruled that a reservation is not necessary. to borrow the words of the Court in "Caños v. to avoid multiplicity of suits. 2049. whatever civil action for the recovery of civil liability that was impliedly instituted therein was likewise dismissed.. With the dismissal of Criminal Case No. the primary purpose of the reservation is.. In other words the right of the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from quasi-delict under Art. . 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will de deemed instituted with the criminal action. . x x x Prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of these independent civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with the criminal action. 1995.

HELD: YES. 1999. Section 4 of the Rules of Court has no application in criminal cases. The trial court denied the motion but was thereafter reversed by the COA on appeal..] FACTS: Webb. It need not be overemphasized that the factual circumstances only serves to underscore the immutable fact that the depositions proposed to be taken from the five U. Respondent further alleged that the taking of the oral depositions of the aforementioned individuals whose testimonies are allegedly ‘material and indispensable’ to establish his innocence of the crime charged is sanctioned by Section 4. HUBERT JEFFREY P. an accused in the crime of Rape with Homicide. the trial court was but exercising its judgment on what it perceived to be a superfluous exercise on the belief that the introduction thereof will not reasonably add to the persuasiveness of the evidence already on record.S. It is pointed out that the defense has already presented at least fifty-seven (57) witnesses and four hundred sixty-four (464) documentary exhibits. 132577.S. ISSUE: Whether or not COA committed reversible error in reversing the trial court’s ruling. before the proper Philippine consular authorities since the Philippine court had no jurisdiction over them and may not therefore be compelled by subpoena to testify. The prosecution thereafter filed an opposition to the said motion averring that Rule 24. No. 2013 by winnieclaire Standard [G.R. We sustain the proposition that the trial judge commits no grave abuse . filed a Motion to Take Testimony by Oral Deposition. WEBB Posted on March 28. many of them of the exact nature as those to be produced or testified to by the proposed foreign deponents. to take the testimonies of some vital witnesses residing in the U. August 17. Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Under the circumstances. based witnesses would be merely corroborative or cumulative in nature and in denying respondent’s motion to take them.

of discretion if she decides that the evidence on the matter sought to be proved in the United States could not possibly add anything substantial to the defense evidence involved. .