G.R. No. 165306 , September 20, 2005
MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, vs. DADODETTE ENTERPRISES AND/OR HERMES SPORTS CENTER, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 17, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 83, issued Search Warrant No. 4044(03) based on an application by an NBI Special Investigator. The warrant authorized a search of the premises of Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center for goods allegedly infringing the copyright of Manly Sportswear Mfg., Inc. (MANLY), in violation of Republic Act No. 8293 (The Intellectual Property Code). The respondents moved to quash the warrant, arguing that MANLY’s sporting goods were ordinary and common, not falling under the classes of work protected by copyright under Section 172 of R.A. No. 8293 , and thus the requisites for issuing the warrant were not met. On June 10, 2003, the trial court granted the motion and declared the search warrant null and void. It found that MANLY’s copyrighted products did not appear to be original creations, as they were being manufactured and distributed by various companies under different brands. It also noted that certificates of copyright registration for similar sports articles were issued earlier than MANLY’s 2002 registrations. MANLY’s motion for reconsideration was denied. MANLY then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s quashal order, ruling that it did not preempt the findings of the intellectual property court. MANLY’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in declaring, during the hearing for the quashal of the search warrant, that the copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations subject to the protection of R.A. No. 8293 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion.
1. Power to Quash Search Warrants: The power to issue search warrants inherently includes the power to quash them. A trial judge may re-evaluate the evidence and quash a warrant if he finds no probable cause exists. The trial court properly entertained and granted the motion to quash as no criminal action had been instituted at the time it was filed.
2. Preliminary Nature of Proceedings: In determining probable cause for issuing or quashing a search warrant, a court may preliminarily touch upon issues like the copyrightability and originality of the subject works. Such a determination is merely provisional and interlocutory; it does not constitute a final adjudication on the merits or preclude a full-blown trial on the issue of copyright infringement. The order quashing the warrant is not res judicata.
3. Copyright Certificates as Prima Facie Evidence: Certificates of copyright registration and deposit constitute only prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. No presumption of validity arises where other evidence, such as proof that the products are not original and are commonly available in the market, casts doubt on the copyright. The trial court correctly considered such evidence in finding a lack of probable cause.
4. Effect of Registration: Citing Section 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards and Regulations, the Court held that registration and deposit of a work are purely for recording purposes and are not conclusive as to copyright ownership, validity, or the rights of the copyright owner. The certificates serve merely as notice of recording and do not automatically confer protection.
Therefore, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in quashing the search warrant after re-evaluating the evidence and finding that MANLY’s products were not original creations protected under the law, and thus, no probable cause existed for the warrant’s issuance.