GR 179367; (January, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179367 ; January 29, 2014
Unilever Philippines, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. Tan, Respondent.
FACTS
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied for and was granted search warrants against respondent Michael Tan, alleging possession of counterfeit Unilever shampoo products in violation of the Intellectual Property Code. The NBI seized numerous sachets and boxes of alleged counterfeit Creamsilk and Sunsilk products from an office and a warehouse. The NBI filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The respondent denied the allegations, claiming he was not “Michael Tan” but “Paul D. Tan,” a leather goods trader, that the office sachets were for personal use, and that he did not own the warehouse. The State Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, a ruling affirmed by the Acting Secretary of Justice. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed Unilever’s petition for certiorari, upholding the DOJ’s finding of no probable cause.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in upholding the DOJ’s dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for unfair competition?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and directed the filing of an Information against the respondent. The legal logic centered on the proper determination of probable cause at the preliminary investigation stage. The Court clarified that probable cause does not require evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only such evidence as would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. The DOJ and the CA erred in requiring a higher quantum of proof.
The Court found that the totality of the seized counterfeit goods, the respondent’s connection to the office where some items were found, and the circumstances surrounding the warehouse operation collectively established sufficient probable cause. The respondent’s denial of ownership of the warehouse and claim of personal use for the office sachets were matters of defense best ventilated in a full trial, not grounds for dismissing the complaint at the preliminary investigation stage. The DOJ’s dismissal, based on an overly stringent assessment of evidence, constituted grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. Consequently, the State Prosecutor was ordered to file the appropriate Information.