FACTS:

The case involves the petitioners who are stockholders of Omni Gas Corporation (Omni). The case began when JGAC Law Offices sent a letter to the NBI requesting an investigation into alleged illegal trading of petroleum products and underfilling of branded LPG cylinders. NBI agents conducted surveillance on Omni and conducted a test-buy, where they found refilled cylinders without LPG valve seals and underfilled cylinders. Search warrants were issued and several items were seized from Omni's premises. Complaint-Affidavits were filed against the petitioners. The Office of the Chief State Prosecutor found probable cause to charge the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the branded LPG cylinders are already owned by consumers, but the law states that they cannot be refilled without authority. The LPG Inspector found an instance of underfilling of a cylinder. The Office of the Secretary of Justice reversed the Chief State Prosecutor's resolution, but the CA revoked this and reinstated the Chief State Prosecutor's resolution. The case was brought before the Supreme Court. Agent De Jemil filed a petition for certiorari to challenge the resolutions of the Office of the Secretary of Justice. The core issues are whether there is probable cause against the petitioners for violations of the law and whether the petitioners can be held liable for such violations. Petron filed a motion to intervene, asserting its vested interest in the seizure of gas cylinders and the right to prosecute the petitioners for unauthorized refilling of its branded cylinders by Omni. Petron's intervention was deemed proper.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Agent De Jemil is the proper legal remedy.

2. Whether there is probable cause that Omni violated Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Secs. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended.

3. Whether the evidence presented, including the test-buy conducted by NBI agents, is sufficient to show that Omni illegally refilled branded LPG cylinders without authority.

4. Whether the ownership of the seized branded LPG cylinders is relevant to the offense charged.

5. Whether the ownership of the seized branded LPG cylinders is of consequence in determining probable cause for violation of BP 33, as amended.

6. Whether a single underfilling of an LPG cylinder constitutes an offense under BP 33, as amended.

7. Whether the report and findings of LPG Inspector Navio are credible despite his alleged lack of independence.

8. Whether the equal protection clause was violated in the application of penalties under B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.

9. Whether the LPG Inspector is qualified to determine underfilling and if his inspection was conducted in accordance with the rules.

10. Whether the petitioners, as members of the board of directors, can be held liable for violations of B.P. Blg. 33, as amended.

11. Whether the directors of a corporation can be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended.

12. Whether the other corporate officers, aside from the president, can be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended.

RULING:

1. The determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. An aggrieved party from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice may directly resort to judicial review through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, Agent De Jemil, as the aggrieved party, availed of the proper legal remedy of a judicial review through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

2. Based on the test-buy conducted by the NBI agents, it was shown that Omni illegally refilled branded LPG cylinders, which is a violation of Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Secs. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended.

3. Yes, the evidence presented, including the test-buy conducted by NBI agents, is sufficient to show that Omni illegally refilled branded LPG cylinders without authority. The fact that Omni refilled various branded LPG cylinders without written authorization from brand owners Petron, Pilipinas Shell, and Total constitutes a violation of Sec. 2(a) in relation to Sec. 3(c) of BP 33, as amended. The Court cites a similar case where the unauthorized refilling of Gasul and Shellane LPG cylinders was considered trademark infringement, emphasizing that only authorized dealers and refillers may refill these branded LPG cylinders.

4. No, the issue of ownership of the seized branded LPG cylinders is irrelevant to the offense charged. BP 33, as amended, does not require ownership of the branded LPG cylinders as a condition for the commission of offenses involving petroleum and petroleum products. Once a consumer buys a branded LPG cylinder from the brand owner or its authorized dealer, the consumer is free to do what they please with it, including storing or destroying it. The law specifically prohibits the refilling of a branded LPG cylinder by a refiller who has no written authority from the brand owner.

5. The ownership of the seized branded LPG cylinders is not of consequence in determining probable cause for violation of BP 33, as amended. It is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized.

6. A single underfilling of an LPG cylinder constitutes an offense under BP 33, as amended. DOE Circular No. 2000-06-010 provides penalties on a per cylinder basis for each violation, which is within the contemplation of the law.

7. The report and findings of LPG Inspector Navio are credible despite his alleged lack of independence. His inspection conducted without the presence of a DOE representative or any independent body with technical expertise in determining LPG cylinder underfilling is valid.

8. The Court held that providing the same penalty regardless of the number of cylinders involved would result in an indiscriminate, oppressive, and impractical application of the law. The equal protection clause required that all persons subject to legislation be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions. Thus, the equal protection clause was not violated.

9. The Court found that the LPG Inspector was qualified to determine underfilling and that his inspection was conducted in the presence of NBI agents. The petitioners failed to provide evidence that the inspection was conducted in violation of the rules or that the inspector was not qualified.

10. The Court held that members of the board of directors were generally excluded from the list of persons who may be held liable for violations of B.P. Blg. 33, as amended. However, petitioner Arnel U. Ty, who was the president of the corporation, could be held liable.

11. The President of a corporation or juridical entity can be held criminally liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended. In this case, petitioner Arnel Ty, as President and manager of the business affairs of Omni Gas Corporation, can be held liable for probable violations by Omni of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended.

12. The other petitioners, Mari Antonette Ty, Jason Ong, Willy Dy, and Alvin Ty, who are also members of the board of directors and elected as corporate officers of Omni Gas Corporation, are excluded from the criminal charges for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended, unless it can be shown that they belong to the catch-all category of "such other officer charged with the management of the business affairs" of Omni Gas Corporation.

PRINCIPLES:

• The determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion.

• An aggrieved party may resort to judicial review through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

• Violation of Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Secs. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended, can be established based on the evidence of illegal refilling of branded LPG cylinders.

• Refilling branded LPG cylinders without written authority from the brand owner constitutes a violation of Sec. 2(a) in relation to Sec. 3(c) of BP 33, as amended.

• Mere unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered trademark in connection with the sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services can be considered trademark infringement.

• Ownership of the branded LPG cylinders is not relevant to the offense of unauthorized refilling.

• Ownership is not a requirement for the issuance of a search warrant. Control or possession of the property sought to be seized is sufficient.

• Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. It implies a probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.

• A single underfilling of an LPG cylinder constitutes an offense under BP 33, as amended.

• The credibility of a witness or the independence of an inspector does not automatically render their report and findings invalid. It is the court's duty to evaluate the credibility and weight of the evidence presented.

• The equal protection clause requires that all persons subject to legislation be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions.

• The qualifications and expertise of an inspector in determining violations should be considered in evaluating the validity of their findings.

• Members of the board of directors are generally excluded from liability for violations of laws, as they are primarily a policy-making body.

• The board of directors of a corporation is generally a policy making body and is not directly engaged in the day-to-day operations of the corporation, except for certain corporate officers.

• The legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies, which means that if a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else not mentioned is excluded from its operation and effect.

• The President of a corporation or juridical entity can be held criminally liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended.

• The other officers, aside from the President, may only be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended, if they are shown to be "such other officer charged with the management of the business affairs" of the corporation.

• The language of the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says when it is clear and unequivocal.