The conduct of a raid by authority of a judicial search warrant, preceding a criminal action for trade mark infringement or unfair competition is perceived by many trade mark owners as one of the more effective means of combating counterfeiting, because it allows for immediate seizure of the infringing goods and there is the threat of possible imprisonment of the infringers. Therefore, a raid yielding negative results is disappointing not only to the IP owners but also to the lawyers and enforcement agencies involved. It also emboldens the alleged infringers to file a suit for damages against the search warrant applicants. This was the situation in the case of Arthur Del Rosario and Alexander Del Rosario vs Hellenor Donato, Jr. and Rafael V. Gonzaga (docketed under GR no 180595), decided by the Supreme Court on March 5 2010.
In this case, some time on January 23 2002, Philip Morris Products wrote a letter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) asking for assistance in curtailing the proliferation of fake Marlboro cigarettes in Angeles City, Pampanga. NBI agent Donato Jr was able to confirm that the storage and sale of fake Marlboros in the house of petitioner Alexander Del Rosario. The NBI applied for search warrant before Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. However, it took the RTC about a week to hear the application and issue the search warrant. Although Donato felt that the delayed hearing compromised the planned raid operation, the search warrant, led by NBI agent Gonzaga, was implemented. The search yielded no fake Marlboro cigarettes.
The Del Rosarios filed a complaint against the NBI agents Donato and Gonzaga claiming damages of P50 million (about $1 million) for wrongful procurement and enforcement of a search warrant. Gonzaga and Donato filed a motion to dismiss, alleging among others, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The RTC denied the motion, and subsequently denied also the motion for reconsideration filed by the NBI agents in 2003.
Unhappy with the ruling of the RTC, the NBI agents filed a special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals and on June 29 2007 annulled the RTC's orders. The Court of Appeal held that in merely alleging that the NBI agents unlawfully procured the search warrant without stating the facts that made the procurement unlawful, the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Del Rosarios appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that all that the Del Rosarios alleged is that the NBI agents "used unlawfully obtained search warrant against them, evidenced by the fact that contrary to the sworn statements used to get such warrant, the NBI agents found no fake Marlboro cigarettes in petitioner Alexander Del Rosario's premises". The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision, and held that a judicially ordered search warrant that fails to yield the described illicit article does not of itself render the court's order as unlawful.
Because the Del Rosarios did not allege that the NBI agents violated their rights by fabricating testimonies to convince the RTC to issue the search warrant, their allegation that the NBI agents used unlawfully obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law, and while a motion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alleged in the complaint, such admission does not extend to conclusions of law. The Supreme Court held that statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action.
 |
| Editha R Hechanova |
Hechanova Bugay & Vilchez
GF Chemphil Building Antonio Arnaiz Ave
Makati City 1223
Philippines
Tel: +63 2 888 4293
Fax: +63 2 888 4290
editharh@info.com.ph