Tomas v. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-Anti-Organized Crime Division
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Myrna Uy Tomas filed four complaints for trademark infringement and unfair competition under Sections 155 and 168 of Republic Act No. 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. These complaints were filed against petitioner Ferdinand V. Tomas, along with Federico Ladines, Jr. and Ryan T. Valdez in two instances, and solely against Ferdinand V. Tomas in the other two. Subsequently, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)-Anti-Organized Crime Division (AOCD) applied for and obtained four search warrants from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. These warrants were executed at FMT Merchandising in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, and a premises in Brgy. Cayambanan, Urdaneta City, resulting in the seizure of various items, including water pumps and related components. Procedural History: Petitioner Ferdinand V. Tomas moved to quash the search warrants, arguing they violated Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC due to a lack of personal endorsement from the head of the PNP. The RTC initially quashed two warrants but later reconsidered and set aside that order, denying the motion to quash. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which, through its Sixth Division, reversed the RTC's orders and quashed all four search warrants, finding them defective. This decision attained finality after the Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Justice issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Petitioner sought review of this resolution before the CA, which, through its Fourth Division, affirmed the Secretary of Justice's finding. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Ferdinand V. Tomas filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision affirming the Secretary of Justice's finding of probable cause. The core of petitioner's argument is that the CA's Fourth Division violated the fundamental rule on the immutability of a final judgment by upholding the validity of the search warrants, which had already been quashed by the CA's Sixth Division in a final and executory decision. Petitioner contends that the CA's Fourth Division effectively modified or amended a final judgment. He also argues against the CA's finding of forum shopping, asserting that he had disclosed the pendency of the prior case. The petition raises issues concerning the validity of the search warrants, the finality of judgments, and the alleged forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals' (4th Division) Decision dated 25 March 2013 violated the fundamental rule on immutability of a final judgment when it declared that search warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103 were validly issued. Whether the Court of Appeals thru the Fourth Division can validly dismiss the case CA-G.R. SP No. 104029 after said court had rendered judgment therein (thru the Sixth Division) and which judgment became final and had already been executed; and whether the petitioner willfully violated the rule against forum shopping. Whether the final judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 104029 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 199699, including the issue of forum shopping, is conclusive and the same cannot be reopened or superseded without violating the fundamental rule on immutability of a final judgment; and whether the Department of Justice is barred from filing an information against petitioner for trademark infringement and unfair competition, even without the confiscated materials.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition for review on certiorari. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, dated March 25, 2013 and July 5, 2013, respectively, were reversed and set aside ONLY insofar as they upheld the validity of Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103. The Court affirmed the finding of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Immutability of Judgment and the CA Sixth Division's Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of immutability of judgment dictates that a final and executory decision becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified. The CA Sixth Division's Decision dated August 16, 2011, which quashed the search warrants, had already attained finality and was affirmed by this Court. The CA Fourth Division's ruling, which effectively upheld the validity of the search warrants, directly contravened this established principle. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the immutability of the final judgment regarding the search warrants. The principle of immutability of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, ensuring certainty and inalterability of judicial pronouncements. On Forum Shopping and the Dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 104029: The Supreme Court found that petitioner did not willfully violate the rule against forum shopping, noting his disclosure of the first petition in his certification for the second. Reversing the earlier decision after it had attained finality would cause injustice to the petitioner. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the CA Sixth Division's decision quashing the search warrants had attained finality, the principle it laid down regarding the personal endorsement of applications for search warrants by agency heads might not be absolute. The Court referenced its ruling in Spouses Marimla v. People, which held that nothing in the relevant A.M.s prohibits the delegation of the ministerial duty of endorsing applications for search warrants to assistant heads. Therefore, the absence of the personal endorsement of the Chief of the PNP might only jeopardize the concerned police officers administratively, but would not necessarily render the search warrants nugatory. The Court emphasized that the finding of probable cause by the judge is paramount and minor defects in the application should not automatically quash the warrant. However, due to the finality of the CA Sixth Division's decision, the search warrants remained quashed. On the Conclusiveness of Final Judgment and the Secretary of Justice's Finding of Probable Cause: The Supreme Court affirmed that the Department of Justice is not barred from filing an information against petitioner for trademark infringement and unfair competition, even without the confiscated materials. The Court adopted a deferential attitude towards the executive's finding of probable cause, respecting the investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted by the Constitution. This is based on respect for the executive department's powers and on practicality, allowing the DOJ to proceed if other pieces of evidence exist.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution insofar as they upheld the validity of the search warrants. The Court reiterated the principle of immutability of judgment, emphasizing that a final and executory decision cannot be modified. However, it clarified that the finding of probable cause by the Department of Justice for trademark infringement and unfair competition is not barred, as other evidence may be used.