G.R. No. 150877 ; May 4, 2006
ELIDAD KHO and VIOLETA KHO, Petitioners, vs. HON. ENRICO LANZANAS, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 7 and SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING, Respondents.

FACTS

Shun Yih Chemistry Factory (SYCF) of Taiwan appointed Quintin Cheng as its Philippine distributor for “Chin Chun Su” products. Cheng later assigned his rights to the trademark to petitioner Elidad Kho. SYCF subsequently terminated its agreement with Cheng and appointed respondent Summerville General Merchandising as its new exclusive distributor. This spawned multiple legal disputes. In a prior civil case for injunction (G.R. No. 144100), the Supreme Court definitively ruled that Summerville, deriving its rights from SYCF, had the better right to the “Chin Chun Su” trademark, declaring Kho’s registration a nullity.
Separately, Summerville filed a criminal complaint for unfair competition against the Khos before the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ found probable cause and recommended filing an Information. The case was raffled to Branch 1 of the Manila RTC. The Khos filed a motion to quash, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as the case involved intellectual property rights, which under an administrative circular, should be heard by designated special commercial courts. The presiding judge of Branch 1 granted the motion and ordered the case re-raffled.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1 of Manila, correctly quashed the Information and ordered the re-raffle of the criminal case for unfair competition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the RTC Branch 1 correctly quashed the Information. The Supreme Court affirmed that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The criminal Information clearly alleged acts constituting unfair competition under Section 168 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (The Intellectual Property Code). Administrative Order No. 113-95 designates specific branches of the RTC as special courts for intellectual property rights violations. Jurisdiction over such cases is vested exclusively in these designated branches.
The law creating the offense and the administrative circular allocating cases are paramount. Since the crime charged falls under the Intellectual Property Code, and Branch 1 of Manila RTC was not a court designated to try such cases, it correctly declared it had no jurisdiction. The order for re-raffle to a proper branch was a valid procedural consequence. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived or vested by the actions of the parties. Therefore, the petition assailing the quashal and re-raffle order was denied.