You are on page 1of 1

Microsoft vs Farajallah

 Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Systems Incorporated (petitioners) are
corporations organized and existing under the laws of the United States.
Microsoft Corporation is the owner of all rights including copyright relating to all
versions and editions of Microsoft software and the corresponding user’s
manuals, and the registered owner of the “Microsoft” “MS DOS” trademarks in
the Philippines. Adobe Systems Incorporated is the owner of all rights including
copyright relating to all versions and editions of Adobe Software.
 Samir Farajallah, et al (respondents) are the directors and officers of New Fields
(Asia Pacific), Inc., a domestic corporation
 Petitioners claim that in September 2009, they were informed that New Fields
was unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed versions of their software.
 Orion Support Inc was asked by petitioners to assist in the verification of this
information. Hired Serrano and Moradoz to detect unauthorized copies of
Microsoft and Adobe.
 Case was assigned to police inspector Padilla (trained also to distinguish original
from counterfeit software)
 3 of them went to NF. Using legitimate business pretext, they were able to use 2
of NF’s computers and found that there are at least 2 computers using the same
product identification and/serial numbers of MS and Adobe. This indicates that
the software is being illegally produced or copied
 NF is using only one installer - first 3 sets of numbers of product ID is the same
 All 90 computers of NF did not have cert of authenticity by MS
 Search warrant apps filed, several items seized (17 CD installers, 83 Computers)
 RTC ruled to quash all warrants and directing that “all items to be seized should
be returned” bec they should have identified and specified the computers they
were taking. CA affirmed
 W/N lower courts committed GAD in granting Motion to quash despite having
probable cause and personal knowledge of the warrant applicant - YES
 we find reason to overturn the rulings of the RTC and CA, since there was grave
abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts. The CA sustained the quashal of
the warrant because the witnesses had “no personal knowledge of the facts upon
which the issuance of the warrants may be justified,” and the applicants and the
witnesses merely relied on the screen shots acquired from the confidential
 CA said that hearsay info can be basis for issuance of search warrant if followed
up personally and validated. It is clear from evidence that Padilla and company
were able to personally verify the informant’s tip.
 So there was probable case for issuance of search warrant and requirement of
personal knowledge is satisfied.