FACTS:

Microsoft Corporation filed a complaint against Beltron Computer Philippines, Inc. and Taiwan Machinery Display & Trade Center, Inc. for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Microsoft alleged that the respondents were illegally copying and selling Microsoft software without authorization. Microsoft terminated its Licensing Agreement with Beltron due to non-payment of royalties. Microsoft conducted an investigation and filed a complaint before the DOJ. State Prosecutor Jocelyn Ong recommended the dismissal of the complaint, stating that the obligations between the parties were civil in nature. Beltron argued that the case should be civil in nature and that the contract cannot be unilaterally terminated. TMTC presented evidence that the Microsoft software in their possession were bought from Singapore, claiming their intent was not to defraud the public and that they bought genuine Microsoft software from a licensee. The DOJ dismissed Microsoft's complaint for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence. Microsoft filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging that the respondents were engaged in illegal activities and that the DOJ misappreciated the law on copyright.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Microsoft engaged in forum-shopping.

2. Whether the DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in not finding probable cause to charge respondents with copyright infringement and unfair competition.

3. Whether the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged

4. Whether the evidence presented by Microsoft is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause against respondents

5. Can the private complainant seek remedies under PD 49 and Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code to vindicate its rights?

6. Is there probable cause to indict the respondents for copyright infringement?

7. Is there probable cause to indict the respondents for unfair competition?

RULING:

1. The petition has merit.

2. • Microsoft did not engage in forum-shopping.
3. • The DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in not finding probable cause to charge respondents with copyright infringement and unfair competition.

4. The act or omission complained of does constitute the offense charged. Probable cause does not require absolute certainty or sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that there is a reasonable belief that the act or omission constitutes the offense charged.

5. The evidence presented by Microsoft is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause against respondents. The gravamen of copyright infringement is the unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered by Section 5 of PD 49. Similarly, unfair competition requires the offender to give his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer with intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor. The evidence presented by Microsoft, such as the CD-ROMs containing counterfeit software purchased from respondents, supports a reasonable belief that respondents committed copyright infringement and unfair competition.

6. The private complainant is not precluded from seeking remedies under PD 49 and Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code to vindicate its rights.

7. Yes, there is probable cause to indict the respondents for copyright infringement under Section 5(A) in relation to Section 29 of PD 49 for unauthorized copying and selling of protected intellectual works.

8. Yes, there is probable cause to indict the respondents for unfair competition under Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code for passing off Microsoft products.

PRINCIPLES:

• Forum-shopping occurs when a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. It is an act of malpractice that abuses court processes.

• To be considered forum-shopping, there must be identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the other case.

• The prosecutor's discretion in determining probable cause is generally not interfered by the court unless it is shown to have been abused. The standard of probable cause requires facts and circumstances that incite a reasonable belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

• Probable cause does not require absolute certainty or sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.

• Copyright infringement consists in the unauthorized performance of any act that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do.

• Infringement of copyright is a trespass on a private domain protected by law.

• Unfair competition requires the offender to give his goods the general appearance of the goods of another with intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.

• The private complainant can seek remedies under PD 49 and Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code to vindicate its rights.

• The presence of probable cause is required to indict respondents for copyright infringement and unfair competition.

• The absence of standard features accompanying authentic products may indicate illegality in the purchase of counterfeit products.

• Rights to reproduce and distribute copyrighted materials are limited by agreements made with the copyright holder.

• Counterfeit products that are indistinguishable from genuine products and have similar content imply an intent to deceive.

• Receipts, coupled with claims made by the copyright holder, can support the inference that respondents are the source of counterfeit products.