G.R. No. 148420. December 15, 2005.
ANDREA TAN, CLARITA LLAMAS, VICTOR ESPINA and LUISA ESPINA, Petitioners, vs. BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

An Information for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 21. Respondent Bausch & Lomb, Inc., the trademark owner, moved to transfer the case to RTC Branch 9, which was designated as a special intellectual property court by Administrative Order No. 113-95. Petitioners opposed and filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the prescribed penalty for the offense (prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from ₱500 to ₱2,000) fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) under Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
The trial court granted the Motion to Quash and denied the transfer, ruling that Administrative Orders could not prevail over the substantive jurisdictional provisions of BP 129. Respondent did not appeal but instead filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals one day beyond the reglementary period. The appellate court gave due course to the petition, vacated the trial court’s order, and directed the transfer of the criminal case to RTC Branch 9.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) giving due course to respondent’s petition for certiorari despite procedural lapses; and (2) ruling that the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense of unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that while certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and respondent missed the filing deadline, the appellate court correctly exercised its discretion to relax the technical rules. The trial court’s order was a patent nullity for wrongly dismissing the case based on a fundamental error in jurisdiction. In the interest of substantial justice and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, procedural lapses may be excused, especially where the merits of the case are apparent.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that jurisdiction is vested in the RTC. While BP 129 originally placed crimes with penalties of imprisonment not exceeding six years or a fine not exceeding ₱4,000 within MTCC jurisdiction, subsequent laws and administrative issuances have reallocated jurisdiction over intellectual property violations. Administrative Order No. 104-96 explicitly provided that violations of intellectual property rights, including Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, “shall be tried exclusively by the RTC.” This administrative order, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning court procedure and its administrative supervision over all courts, effectively amended the jurisdictional framework for such special cases. Therefore, the RTC, not the MTCC, has exclusive original jurisdiction over the offense charged. The case was correctly ordered transferred to the designated special commercial court, RTC Branch 9 of Cebu City.