SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.161693.June28,2005]

MANOLO P. SAMSON, petitioner, vs. HON. VICTORIANO B. CABANOS, In his

capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court ofAntipolo City,
Branch 71, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CATERPILLAR, INC.,
respondents.
DECISION
PUNO,J.:

Petitioner Manolo P. Samson seeks the reversal of the orders dated January 22, 2003 and
November 17, 2003 issued by Presiding Judge Felix S. Caballes and Acting Presiding Judge
VictorianoB.Cabanos,respectively,oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofAntipoloCity,Branch71,in
relationtoCriminalCaseNo.0223183.Theassailedordersdeniedpetitionersmotiontoquashthe
[1]
information for unfair competition filed against him before said court. Petitioner also prayed that a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin respondent judge from
further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 0223183 until the resolution of the instant petition. The
[2]
CourtissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderonFebruary18,2004.
Thebackgroundfacts:PetitionerwaschargedwiththecrimeofunfaircompetitionbeforetheRTC
ofAntipoloCityinanInformationthatstates:
TheundersignedSeniorStateProsecutoroftheDepartmentofJusticeherebyaccusesMANOLOP.SAMSON
forviolationofSec.168.3(a)inrelationtoSecs.123.1(e),131.3and170ofRA8293otherwiseknownasthe
IntellectualPropertyCodeofthePhilippines,committedasfollows:
ThatonoraboutthefirstweekofNovember1999andsometimepriororsubsequentthereto,inCainta,Rizal,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,abovenamedaccused,owner/proprietorofITTI
ShoesCorporationlocatedatF.P.FelixAvenue,Cainta,Rizal,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslydistribute,selland/orofferforsaleCATERPILLARproductssuchasfootwear,garments,clothing,
bags,accessoriesandparaphernaliawhicharecloselyidenticaltoand/orcolorableimitationsoftheauthentic
Caterpillarproductsandlikewiseusingtrademarks,symbolsand/ordesignsaswouldcauseconfusion,mistake
ordeceptiononthepartofthebuyingpublictothedamageandprejudiceofCATERPILLAR,INC.,theprior
adopter,userandownerofthefollowinginternationallyfamousmarks:CATERPILLAR,CAT,CATERPILLAR,
CAT,CATERPILLAR&DESIGN,CATANDDESIGN,WALKINGMACHINESandTRACKTYPE
TRACTOR&DESIGN.
[3]

CONTRARYTOLAW.

Petitionermovedtoquashtheinformationonthegroundthatthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthe
[4]
offense charged in the Information. He argued that Section 170 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293
providesthatthepenaltyforviolationofSection168thereofisimprisonmentfromtwo(2)tofive(5)
years and a fine ranging from fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to two hundred thousand pesos
[5]
[6]
(P200,000.00), and R.A. No. 7691 amending Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 vested the
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with

[7]

imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the fine. Presiding Judge
[8]
FelixS.CaballesdeniedthemotionforlackofmeritinhisorderdatedJanuary22,2003. Petitioner
filedamotionforreconsiderationwhichwaslikewisedeniedbyActingPresidingJudgeVictorianoB.
[9]
Cabanos.
PetitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforcertioraribeforethisCourtonpurequestionoflaw:
WhetherornottherespondentRegionalTrialCourthasjurisdictionovertheoffenseschargedinthesubject
informationwherethepenaltythereinrangefromtwo(2)yearstofive(5)years,pursuanttoSection170ofR.A.
8293,inthelightoftheenactmentofRepublicActNo.7691,amendingB.P.Blg.129,whichvestsexclusive
originaljurisdictionontheMetropolitanTrialCourtsoveralloffensespunishablewithimprisonmentnot
[10]

exceedingsix(6)yearsirrespectiveoftheamountoffine,inrelationtoSection163ofR.A.No.8293.

Petitioner reiterates his argument before the trial court in support of his motion to quash. He
contendsthatSection170ofR.A.No.8293providesthatthepenaltytobeimposeduponanyperson
guiltyofviolationofSection168ofthelawisimprisonmentfromtwo(2)tofive(5)yearsandafine
rangingfromfiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)totwohundredthousandpesos(P200,000.00).Under
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691, amending Section 32 of B.P. 129, the MTC shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the fine. As petitioner is charged with an offense penalized by imprisonment not
exceedingsix(6)years,thejurisdictiontotrythecaselieswiththeMTCandnottheRTC.Inaddition,
petitionersubmitsthattheoldTrademarkLaw,R.A.No.166,conferringjurisdictionontheCourtsof
FirstInstance(nowRTC)overcomplaintsforunfaircompetition,hasbeenrepealedbySection239of
[11]
R.A.No.8293.HecitestheCourtsdecisioninMirpurivs.CourtofAppeals.
Thepetitionmustbedismissed.
ItappearsthatpetitionerhadalreadyraisedthesameissueandargumentbeforethisCourtinthe
[12]

caseofSamsonvs.Daway, decidedonJuly21,2004.Thatcaseinvolvedexactlythesamefacts
andissueasinthiscase,exceptthattheinformationforunfaircompetitionagainstpetitionerwasfiled
beforetheRTCofQuezonCity.Weheldinthatcase:
Theissuesposedforresolutionare(1)Whichcourthasjurisdictionovercriminalandcivilcasesforviolation
ofintellectualpropertyrights?xxx
UnderSection170ofR.A.No.8293,whichtookeffectonJanuary1,1998,thecriminalpenaltyfor
infringementofregisteredmarks,unfaircompetition,falsedesignationoforiginandfalsedescriptionor
representation,isimprisonmentfrom2to5yearsandafinerangingfromFiftyThousandPesostoTwoHundred
ThousandPesos,towit:
SEC.170.Penalties.Independentofthecivilandadministrativesanctionsimposedbylaw,acriminalpenalty
ofimprisonmentfromtwo(2)yearstofive(5)yearsandafinerangingfromFiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)
toTwohundredthousandpesos(P200,000.00)shallbeimposedonanypersonwhoisfoundguiltyof
committinganyoftheactsmentionedinSection155[Infringement],Section168[UnfairCompetition]and
Section169.1[FalseDesignationofOriginandFalseDescriptionorRepresentation].
Corollarily,Section163ofthesameCodestatesthatactions(includingcriminalandcivil)underSections150,
155,164,166,167,168and169shallbebroughtbeforethepropercourtswithappropriatejurisdictionunder
existinglaws,thus
SEC.163.JurisdictionofCourt.AllactionsunderSections150,155,164and166to169shallbebrought
beforethepropercourtswithappropriatejurisdictionunderexistinglaws.(Emphasissupplied)

TheexistinglawreferredtointheforegoingprovisionisSection27ofR.A.No.166(TheTrademarkLaw)
whichprovidesthatjurisdictionovercasesforinfringementofregisteredmarks,unfaircompetition,false
designationoforiginandfalsedescriptionorrepresentation,islodgedwiththeCourtofFirstInstance(now
RegionalTrialCourt)
SEC.27.JurisdictionofCourtofFirstInstance.AllactionsunderthisChapter[VInfringement]and
ChaptersVI[UnfairCompetition]andVII[FalseDesignatiionofOriginandFalseDescriptionor
Representation],hereofshallbebroughtbeforetheCourtofFirstInstance.
WefindnomeritintheclaimofpetitionerthatR.A.No.166wasexpresslyrepealedbyR.A.No.8293.The
repealingclauseofR.A.No.8293,reads
SEC.239.Repeals.239.1.AllActsandpartsofActsinconsistentherewith,moreparticularlyRepublicActNo.
165,asamendedRepublicActNo.166,asamendedandArticles188and189oftheRevisedPenalCode
PresidentialDecreeNo.49,includingPresidentialDecreeNo.285,asamended,areherebyrepealed.(Emphasis
added)
Notably,theaforequotedclausedidnotexpresslyrepealR.A.No.166initsentirety,otherwise,itwouldnot
haveusedthephrasespartsofActsandinconsistentherewithanditwouldhavesimplystatedRepublicActNo.
165,asamendedRepublicActNo.166,asamendedandArticles188and189oftheRevisedPenalCode
PresidentialDecreeNo.49,includingPresidentialDecreeNo.285,asamendedareherebyrepealed.Itwould
haveremovedalldoubtsthatsaidspecificlawshadbeenrenderedwithoutforceandeffect.Theuseofthe
phrasespartsofActsandinconsistentherewithonlymeansthattherepealpertainsonlytoprovisionswhichare
repugnantornotsusceptibleofharmonizationwithR.A.No.8293.Section27ofR.A.No.166,however,is
consistentandinharmonywithSection163ofR.A.No.8293.HadR.A.No.8293intendedtovestjurisdiction
overviolationsofintellectualpropertyrightswiththeMetropolitanTrialCourts,itwouldhaveexpresslystated
sounderSection163thereof.
Moreover,thesettledruleinstatutoryconstructionisthatincaseofconflictbetweenagenerallawandaspecial
law,thelattermustprevail.JurisdictionconferredbyaspeciallawtoRegionalTrialCourtsmustprevailover
thatgrantedbyagenerallawtoMunicipalTrialCourts.
Inthecaseatbar,R.A.No.8293andR.A.No.166arespeciallawsconferringjurisdictionoverviolationsof
intellectualpropertyrightstotheRegionalTrialCourt.TheyshouldthereforeprevailoverR.A.No.7691,which
isagenerallaw.Hence,jurisdictionovertheinstantcriminalcaseforunfaircompetitionisproperlylodgedwith
theRegionalTrialCourtevenifthepenaltythereforisimprisonmentoflessthan6years,orfrom2to5years
andafinerangingfromP50,000.00toP200,000.00.
Infact,toimplementandensurethespeedydispositionofcasesinvolvingviolationsofintellectualproperty
rightsunderR.A.No.8293,theCourtissuedA.M.No.02111SCdatedFebruary19,2002designatingcertain
RegionalTrialCourtsasIntellectualPropertyCourts.OnJune17,2003,theCourtfurtherissuedaResolution
consolidatingjurisdictiontohearanddecideIntellectualPropertyCodeandSecuritiesandExchange
CommissioncasesinspecificRegionalTrialCourtsdesignatedasSpecialCommercialCourts.
ThecaseofMirpuriv.CourtofAppeals,invokedbypetitionerfindsnoapplicationinthepresentcase.Nowhere
inMirpurididwestatethatSection27ofR.A.No.166wasrepealedbyR.A.No.8293.Neitherdidwemakea
categoricalrulingthereinthatjurisdictionovercasesforviolationofintellectualpropertyrightsislodgedwith
theMunicipalTrialCourts.ThepassingremarkinMirpuriontherepealofR.A.No.166byR.A.No.8293was
merelyabackgroundertotheenactmentofthepresentIntellectualPropertyCodeandcannotthusbeconstrued
asajurisdictionalpronouncementincasesforviolationofintellectualpropertyrights.
Theforegoingrulingisthelawofthecaseandthuslaystoresttheissueposedbypetitioner.We
see no reason in this case to deviate therefrom. It is a basic legal principle that whatever is once
irrevocablyestablishedasthecontrollinglegalruleordecisionbetweenthesamepartiesinthecase

continuestobethelawofthecase,whethercorrectongeneralprinciplesornot,solongasthefacts
onwhichsuchdecisionwaspredicatedcontinuetobethefactsofthecasebeforethecourt.

[13]

INVIEWWHEREOF,thepetitionisDISMISSED.Thetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedbythis
CourtonFebruary18,2004isherebyLIFTED.
SOORDERED.
AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,Tinga,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

Rollo,pp.2325.
Rollo,pp.116118.
Rollo,pp.2627.
IntellectualPropertyCodeofthePhilippines.
An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
JudiciaryReorganizationActof1980.
Rollo,pp.2932.
Rollo,pp.2324.
Rollo,p.25.

[10]
[11]

Rollo,pp.56.

318SCRA516(1999).

[12]
[13]

434SCRA612(2004).
Cucuecovs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,G.R.No.139278,October25,2004.