Date: July 21, 2004 SAMSON v. DAWAY Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: MANOLO P. SAMSON, petitioner 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. Nature of the case: Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the March 26, 2003 Order of the RTC of Quezon City, which denied petitioners (1) motion to quash the information; and (2) motion for reconsideration of the August 9, 2002 Order denying his motion to suspend the arraignment and other proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. Q-02-108043-44. - Petitioner also questioned its August 5, 2003 Order which denied his motion for reconsideration. 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. CRIMPRO Title
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. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/160054_55.htm 2S 2016-17 (MALLARI)