View full case

PETRON CORPORATION v. WILLIAM YAO

FACTS:

Petron Corporation filed a complaint against Masagana Gas Corp for unauthorized refilling, sale, and distribution of Petron-owned Gasul LPG cylinders. Petron engaged the services of Bernabe Alajar to investigate the reported violations and coordinated with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for the investigation. NBI agents conducted surveillance and witnessed Masagana employees refilling Petron Gasul LPG cylinders and selling them. They also found Petron gasul LPG cylinders at a warehouse, confirming Masagana's engagement in the sale and distribution of Petron Gasul LPG. Search warrants were applied for and Informations were filed against Masagana in the trial courts of Trece Martires City and Makati City.

Masagana filed a motion to quash the information in the Makati City trial court, arguing that the same offense was already being tried in Trece Martires City. The Makati court denied the motion and scheduled the arraignment. Masagana filed an urgent motion to dismiss, claiming that a single information for unfair competition should have been filed and that the Trece Martires City court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Makati court denied the motion to quash but later granted the motion for reconsideration. Petron filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the quashal of the Information. The CA held that unfair competition is a transitory or continuing crime and only one crime is committed, despite the acts taking place in different cities. Petron filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. Petron now files a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in characterizing unfair competition as a continuing crime and in concluding that there is only a single crime committed.

The case involves a dispute between Petron Corporation and Masagana Superstore, Inc. concerning the crime of unfair competition. Petron filed criminal complaints against Masagana for selling counterfeit Petron lubricants in two different locations - Trece Martires City, Cavite, and Makati City. Masagana moved to quash the information for the crime of unfair competition filed against them in Makati City on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Makati court granted the motion to quash and ruled that there can only be a single crime of unfair competition regardless of the acts involved. Petron filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling. Petron now files a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is the proper party to bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People.

  2. Whether the dismissal of the criminal case by the trial court can be appealed by the private complainant or offended party without the intervention of the OSG.

  3. Whether the crime of unfair competition is a transitory offense or a continued crime.

  4. Whether the RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over the case.

  5. Whether the sales made in Cavite and Makati City constitute separate offenses of unfair competition or are merely ingredients of the crime.

  6. Which court has jurisdiction over the case for unfair competition filed against respondents.

  7. Whether the crime of unfair competition is considered a delito continuado or continuous crime.

  8. Whether separate complaints can be initiated for the crime of unfair competition allegedly committed against different consumers.

RULING:

  1. The OSG is the proper party to bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. Only the OSG has the authority to represent the government in all criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals (CA) or the Supreme Court. The dismissal of a criminal case affects the People as the real party in interest, and thus, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or the Supreme Court. Any appeal filed by the private complainant without the intervention of the OSG is dismissible.

  2. The private complainant or offended party may file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. They may also file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case.

  3. The crime of unfair competition is a continuing offense. The act of imitation done in one jurisdiction and the selling made in another jurisdiction are not considered separate offenses but constitute an ingredient of the crime of unfair competition. Unfair competition is characterized as a continuing offense due to the nature of the crime.

  4. The RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over the case. Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. In the case of transitory or continuing offenses, the court of either province where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place has jurisdiction to try the case.

  5. The sales made in Cavite and Makati City cannot be considered as separate offenses of unfair competition as they merely constitute the ingredients of the crime. The crime of unfair competition is a continuing violation, as the respondents continued to pass off the Petron gasul tanks as their own by subsequently selling the same in Makati City. Therefore, the sales made in both Cavite and Makati City are part of a single offense.

  6. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts. Since the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Cavite had earlier acquired jurisdiction over the case of unfair competition filed against respondents, the RTC of Makati City correctly quashed the Information filed with it for lack of jurisdiction.

  7. The crime of unfair competition is not considered a delito continuado. In order for a crime to be considered a delito continuado, there must be plurality of acts committed by the actor against different parties on the same occasion with the same criminal intent or purpose of violating the same penal provision. In this case, the respondents only continued or repeated the alleged singular crime committed in Cavite and all the way up to Makati, which does not meet the criteria of a delito continuado. Therefore, unfair competition does not fall under the criterion of a delito continuado.

  8. Separate and distinct complaints cannot be initiated for the crime of unfair competition allegedly committed against different consumers. It is only the owners of the trademark who can file a case for unfair competition for deceptive trade practices. The rule protecting against unfair competition is primarily for the protection of the party against whom such competition is directed. The court's intervention is necessary to protect the owner of a business from fraudulent invasion by others. Therefore, it is the owners of the trademark who can initiate a case for unfair competition, not the deceived consumers.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The authority to represent the State in criminal appeals before the CA or the Supreme Court is vested solely in the OSG.

  • The People are deemed as the real parties in interest in a criminal case, and thus, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or the Supreme Court.

  • Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.

  • The private complainant or offended party may file an appeal, but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.

  • The private complainant or offended party may file a special civil action for certiorari, but only to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case.

  • Crimes may be classified as transitory or continuing offenses. Transitory offenses are those in which some acts material and essential to the crime occur in one province and some in another, and any court in either province where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place has jurisdiction. Continuing offenses, on the other hand, are those in which the violation of the law is deemed to be continuing, and the court where any element of the offense is committed has jurisdiction.

  • Unfair competition is a continuing offense. It is characterized by the passing off or attempting to pass off the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another, with the intent to deceive the public. The main element of unfair competition is passing off, and one way of committing the crime is through sale.

  • In transitory or continuing offenses where acts material and essential to the crime occur in different provinces, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case.

  • The concept of delito continuado or continuous crimes involves a plurality of acts performed during a period of time, unity of penal provision violated, and unity of criminal intent or purpose.

  • Delito continuado is not applicable to cases where there are different occasions or resolutions to commit the offenses.

  • Delito continuado refers to a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. For a crime to be considered a delito continuado, there must be plurality of acts committed by the actor against different parties on the same occasion with the same criminal intent or purpose of violating the same penal provision.

  • Unfair competition is primarily for the protection of the party against whom such competition is directed, and only incidentally for the protection of the public. The prohibition is upon acting in a way that misleads the public and diverts customers from the complainant, to the injury of their business. It is the owners of the trademark who can file a case for unfair competition for deceptive trade practices. The court's intervention is necessary to protect the owner of a business from fraudulent invasion by others.