CASE DIGEST

REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION, ARNEL U. TY, MARI ANTONETTE N. TY, ORLANDO

REYES, FERRER SUAZO and ALVIN U. TV, Petitioners,
vs.
PETRON CORPORATION, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and SHELL
INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petron and Shell found that someone was abusing their LGP containers labeled
"Gasul" and "Shellane". Petron and Shell are both trademarked. The offender was
not found, not only under refilling the containers, but also refilling them without
the Petron's and Shell's authority. The police discovered the information through a
test-purchase.Republic Gas Corporation was the perpetrator of this operation
(REGASCO). For trademark infringement, a case was filed against REGASCO's
Board of Directors.infringement, for making it appear to their customers that what
they were doing was illegal selling was actual LGP from Shell and Petron. 

The prosecutor identified that no evidence was presented by the petitioners to show
that private respondent REGASCO was engaged in selling petitioners' products or
that it imitated and reproduced the petitioners' registered logos. He also claimed
that he saw no deception on REGASCO's part in the course of its business of
refilling and advertising and marketing LPG. This was confirmed by the
Department of Justice's Secretary.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is probable cause to hold individual petitioners responsible

for the offense charged. The petitioners, as corporate agents, have won the right to
be prosecuted.

RULING:
Yes. The Court in a very similar case, made it categorically clear that the mere
unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered trademark in connection with the
sale, distribution or advertising of goods or services which is likely to cause confusion,
mistake or deception among the buyers or consumers can be considered as trademark
infringement.12 Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or directors, through whose
act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be
individually held answerable for the crime.13 Veritably, the CA appropriately pointed
out that petitioners, being in direct control and supervision in the management and
conduct of the affairs of the corporation, must have known or are aware that the
corporation is engaged in the act of refilling LPG cylinders bearing the marks of the
respondents without authority or consent from the latter which, under the
circumstances, could probably constitute the crimes of trademark infringement and
unfair competition. The existence of the corporate entity does not shield from
prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally caused the
corporation to commit a crime. Thus, petitioners cannot hide behind the cloak of the
separate corporate personality of the corporation to escape criminal liability. A
corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual,
present and efficient actor.