Criminal Procedure 2E

TOPIC Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts – R.A. No. 8293 – Violation of DATE 21 July 2004
Intellectual Property
CASE TITLE Manolo P. SAMSON v. Hon. Reynaldo B. DAWAY, Presiding Judge, RTC of GR NO 160054-55
QC, People of the Philippiness and Caterpillar, Inc.
DOCTRINE Jurisdiction conferred by a special law to a particular court must prevail over that granted by a
general law.
FACTS • On March 7, 2002, two informations for unfair competition under Section 168.3 (a), in
relation to Section 170, of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), were
filed against petitioner Manolo P. Samson, the registered owner of ITTI Shoes.
• The petitioner, owner/proprietor of ITTI Shoes/Mano Shoes Manufacturing Corporation,
allegedly sold or offers the sale of garment products using the trademark CATERPILLAR
products such as footwear, garments, clothing, bags, accessories and paraphernalia which
are closely identical to and/or colorable imitations of the authentic Caterpillar products
and likewise using trademarks, symbols and/or designs as would cause confusion, mistake
or deception on the part of the buying public to the damage and prejudice of CATERPILLAR,
INC, private respondent in this case.
• The respondent filed the case with the RTC. Consequently, in an Order dated August 9,
2002, the trial court denied the motion to suspend arraignment and other proceedings
filed by the petitioner.
• The petitioner filed a motion to quash by challenging 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. Hence, the instant petition alleging that respondent Judge gravely abused
its discretion in issuing the assailed orders.
ISSUE/S Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases for violation of intellectual property
rights?
RATIO • The SC held that under Sec. 163 of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), actions for unfair
competition shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under
existing laws. The “existing law” contemplated in Section 163 of IPC is RA 166 otherwise
known as the Trademark Law.
• Sec 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.
Jurisdiction conferred by a special law to Regional Trial Courts must prevail over that granted
by a general law to Municipal Trial Courts.
RULING WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
NOTES

1
 Criminal Procedure 2E