View full case

UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TAN

FACTS:

Unilever Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the dismissal of its complaint against Michael Tan for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. The petitioner alleged that Tan was in possession of counterfeit shampoo products. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a search in Tan's office and warehouse and seized various sachets of shampoo products. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The CA affirmed the DOJ's decision, prompting Unilever to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The issue before the Court was whether the CA committed an error in upholding the dismissal of the complaint against Tan.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the court can intervene in the executive determination of probable cause

  2. Whether there is probable cause to indict the respondent for unfair competition.

  3. Whether or not the order mandating the filing of an appropriate information against Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. Tan is valid.

RULING:

  1. The court may intervene in the executive determination of probable cause, review the findings and conclusions, and ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation when necessary for the orderly administration of justice. However, the court can only do so if there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. Grave abuse of discretion means the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

  2. Yes, there is probable cause to indict the respondent for unfair competition. The determination of probable cause requires only a probability of guilt or a reasonable ground for belief that a crime has been committed. It does not require clear and convincing evidence of guilt or absolute certainty of guilt. The determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of the accusation or defense, or the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented. Thus, the dismissal of the complaint despite ample evidence to support a finding of probable cause constitutes grave error. The State Prosecutor is ordered to file the appropriate Information against the respondent.

  3. The order mandating the filing of an appropriate information against Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. Tan is valid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of probable cause is an executive function lodged with the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice.

  • The court generally does not interfere with the prosecutor's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause.

  • The court can intervene when there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice.

  • Grave abuse of discretion refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

  • The determination of probable cause requires only a probability of guilt or a reasonable ground for belief that a crime has been committed. It does not require clear and convincing evidence of guilt or absolute certainty of guilt.

  • The determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of the accusation or defense, or the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented. These matters are better ventilated during the trial proper.

  • Probable cause is based on opinion and reasonable belief. It does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

  • The validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.

No specific legal principles or doctrines were mentioned in the provided text.