G.R. No. 148029, September 24, 2002
Microsoft Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, Perfect Deal Corporation, Marcos C. Yuen doing business as Perfect Byte Computer Center and Hon. Florentino M. Alumbres, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 255, Las Piñas City, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Microsoft Corporation, a US-based corporation not doing business in the Philippines, filed a complaint for Injunction and Damages with Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and the Provisional Measure of Preservation of Evidence against the respondents. It alleged that the respondents, without authority, copied, reproduced, distributed, installed, and/or loaded Microsoft’s software programs into computer units sold to customers, violating its intellectual property rights. The complaint prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction and an ex parte order for the seizure and impounding of relevant evidence from the respondents’ business premises. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 255, presided by Judge Florentino M. Alumbres, set the prayer for a temporary restraining order for hearing but denied the application for an ex parte seizure order. The trial court reasoned that the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293) does not expressly allow such an issuance, the TRIPS Agreement cannot prevail over it, and the application partook of a search and seizure order available only in criminal cases. Microsoft’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Microsoft then filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, arguing the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the ex parte order, citing Section 216.2 of RA 8293 and Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement. It bypassed the Court of Appeals, claiming the issue was of importance and involved a pure question of law, and that direct resort was justified to prevent worsening intellectual piracy.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari, challenging the RTC’s denial of Microsoft’s application for an ex parte order for seizure and impounding of evidence, on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and SUSTAINED the assailed RTC orders. The Court held that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy like an appeal. The RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint as the damages claimed exceeded P200,000.00 and the case was properly lodged. The Court found that Microsoft failed to demonstrate how the RTC acted in a despotic, capricious, or whimsical manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. Even assuming the RTC’s orders were erroneous, such error would merely be an error of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Microsoft’s direct resort to the Supreme Court disregarded the hierarchy of courts. No exceptional or compelling reason was presented to bypass the Court of Appeals, as the quest for speedy justice cannot justify trampling upon the policy of observing judicial hierarchy. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.