Tomas vs. CIDG-AOCD

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. Applied here, the final judgment quashing Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103 could not be overturned by a co-equal Court of Appeals division, although its underlying rule requiring personal endorsement by the agency head was clarified as not prohibiting delegation of that ministerial duty.

Ferdinand V. Tomas was connected with FMT Merchandising in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, which dealt in Pedrollo water pumps and related items claimed by private respondent Myrna Uy Tomas as protected marks. Republic Act No. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, defines and penalizes trademark infringement under Section 155 and unfair competition under Section 168, in relation to Section 170. Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC governed applications for search warrants in special criminal cases, including Intellectual Property Code violations, filed before the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City.

Myrna Uy Tomas filed four complaints for violation of Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293. The first two, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2007-926 and 2007-927, were against Ferdinand V. Tomas, Federico Ladines, Jr. and Ryan T. Valdez, while the third and fourth, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2007-940 and 2007-941, were against Ferdinand V. Tomas alone.

Thereafter, on October 24, 2007, the PNP CIDG-AOCD presented four applications for issuance of search warrants before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The applications were signed by P/Chief Inspector Helsin B. Walin and approved by Police Director Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief of the CIDG. Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros of Branch 33 issued Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103, which CIDG-AOCD members served on the premises of FMT Merchandising located at Alexander St., Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and at 394 Cayambanan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.

The search at FMT Merchandising resulted in seizure of one piece of Pedrollo JSWm/8H 0.75 water pump. The search at Brgy. Cayambanan yielded (a) three hundred forty-two empty boxes of Pedrollo, (b) nineteen pieces of Pedrollo terminal box cover, (c) thirty-one pieces of Pedrollo electric water pump, (d) three pieces of unserviceable Pedrollo water pump, and (e) twenty-one pieces of Pedrollo gauge.

Because the applications had been endorsed only by the CIDG Chief and not personally by then PNP Chief Director General Avelino Razon, Tomas moved to quash the warrants for violation of SC Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC. The RTC initially quashed two warrants, then reconsidered and set aside the quashal. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals Sixth Division quashed all four warrants for non-compliance with the personal-endorsement requirement, a ruling that became final and executory after denial of review. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Justice found probable cause against Tomas for trademark infringement and unfair competition, which the Court of Appeals Fourth Division affirmed while declaring the warrants valid and the lack of personal endorsement of no moment.

• Immutability of Final Judgment and Validity of Search Warrants: Petitioner argued that the Sixth Division Decision dated August 16, 2011 declaring Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103 violative of Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC had become final and executory, and that the Fourth Division Decision dated March 25, 2013 upholding the validity of the same warrants modified, altered and amended a final judgment in violation of the rule on immutability.
• Forum Shopping — No Willful Violation: Petitioner maintained that there was no forum shopping because the two CA cases had no identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs prayed for, and that he had informed the Fourth Division of incidents relative to the Sixth Division case, including through certification and subsequent notices of judgment and manifestations.
• Authority to File Review: Petitioner argued that respondent Myrna Tomas filed the petition for certiorari with this Court without authority from the Office of the Solicitor General, and that said petition was denied on March 5, 2012 and affirmed on June 27, 2012.

• Re-trial in the Interest of Justice: Respondent Myrna Uy Tomas countered that a case may be re-tried in the interest of justice despite res judicata having set in.
• Soundness of Fourth Division Decision: Respondent argued that the questioned Fourth Division decision was sound and based on facts and law.
• Forum Shopping by Petitioner: Respondent insisted that petitioner was guilty of forum shopping.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: Whether the CA Fourth Division Decision dated March 25, 2013 violated the rule on immutability of final judgment when it declared Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103 validly issued despite the final Sixth Division judgment quashing them.
• Conclusiveness of Prior Final Judgment and Forum Shopping: Whether the final judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 104029, affirmed by the Supreme Court, including the issue of forum shopping, is conclusive and cannot be reopened or superseded, and whether petitioner willfully violated the rule against forum shopping.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: Yes. The August 16, 2011 Sixth Division quashal, having attained finality, was immutable and unalterable, so the Fourth Division ruling upholding the same warrants was reversed and set aside insofar as it did so.
• Conclusiveness of Prior Final Judgment and Forum Shopping: No willful forum shopping was committed. Petitioner disclosed the first petition in his certification and later notices, so the earlier final judgment stands without being reopened to his prejudice, while the probable-cause finding remains reviewable on other evidence.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: The doctrine bars any modification of a final judgment even to correct erroneous fact or law, whether by the rendering court or the highest court, subject only to narrow exceptions for clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening unjust or inequitable circumstances. None of the compelling equitable circumstances recognized in FGU Insurance Corporation vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66 and related cases was found, so the Sixth Division quashal for violation of Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC was preserved despite its legal premise being later disowned.
• Conclusiveness of Prior Final Judgment and Forum Shopping: Forum shopping requires (1) identity of parties representing the same interests, (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs founded on the same facts, and (3) identity such that judgment in one amounts to res judicata in the other, with violation of Section 5, Rule 7 warranting dismissal. Applied here, petitioner notified the Fourth Division through his non-forum-shopping certification referencing the DOJ preliminary investigations and the pending first petition, a disclosure respondent admitted was made, reinforced by a Notice of Judgment and manifestations on the Sixth Division developments. Having been thus informed, the Fourth Division could have dismissed outright but instead ruled only after finality, so reversal of the earlier decision would cause injustice; finality rests on public policy favoring certainty over occasional error.

• Immutability of final judgment — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, whether by the rendering court or the highest court. Exceptions are limited to correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, void judgments, and supervening circumstances rendering execution impossible, unjust or inequitable. Applied here, the final quashal order was sustained despite disagreement with its legal basis, no compelling equitable circumstance having been shown.
• Forum shopping — Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, founded on the same transactions, facts and issues pending in or resolved by another court. Its elements are identity of parties or interests, identity of rights asserted and reliefs founded on the same facts, and identity such that judgment in one amounts to res judicata in the other. Non-compliance with the Section 5, Rule 7 certification warrants dismissal, with willful and deliberate forum shopping warranting summary dismissal with prejudice and contempt. Applied here, no willful violation was found because petitioner disclosed the first CA petition and updated the court on its progress.
• Delegation of ministerial endorsement of search warrant applications — Nothing in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC or the substantially similar A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits heads of the NBI, PNP and ACTAF from delegating the ministerial duty of endorsing search warrant applications to assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, assistant heads and subordinates may perform duties specified by superiors unless inconsistent with law. Following Spouses Marimla vs. People, such delegated endorsement has the same force as the head's own endorsement, and absence of personal endorsement exposes officers only to possible administrative liability without nullifying probable cause already found.
• Requisites and grounds for quashing a search warrant — Drawn from Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, a valid search warrant requires (1) probable cause, (2) determined personally by the judge, (3) upon examination in writing and under oath or affirmation of complainant and witnesses, (4) testifying on facts personally known to them, and (5) particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized. A motion to quash lies only for extrinsic grounds such as mismatch of place or property seized or absence of probable cause. Applied here, lack of the PNP Chief's personal endorsement was not a constitutional defect warranting quashal, though the prior erroneous quashal had to stand on immutability grounds.
• Executive determination of probable cause — Review of the prosecutor's finding of probable cause is approached with deference, based on respect for investigatory and prosecutorial powers and on practicality. Applied here, the Department of Justice was not barred from filing informations for trademark infringement and unfair competition if probable cause remained supportable by other evidence despite exclusion of items seized under the quashed warrants.

• "Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land." — States the controlling immutability rule that preserved the final quashal order despite its erroneous legal premise.
• "The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court." — Reproduces the Section 12, Chapter V, A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC requirement on which the Sixth Division had anchored quashal for lack of PNP Chief endorsement.
• "It has been set led in our jurisprudence that "forum shopping" exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court." — Provides the canonical definition used to test whether petitioner's two CA petitions constituted forum shopping.
• "Furthermore, it must be remembered that the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized." — Enumerates the constitutional requisites showing why lack of personal endorsement alone should not have voided the warrants.

• FGU Insurance Corporation vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, 659 Phil. 117 (2011) — Cited as authority for the immutability rule and its four exceptions, applied to reject reopening the final quashal absent compelling equitable circumstances.
• Spouses Marimla vs. People, 619 Phil. 56 (2009) — Followed to clarify that agency heads may delegate the ministerial endorsement of search warrant applications to assistant heads under the Administrative Code, disowning the Sixth Division's strict personal-endorsement rule prospectively.
• People vs. Francisco, 436 Phil. 383 (2002) — Cited for the five constitutional requisites for issuance of a search warrant, supporting the view that endorsement defects are minor and technical against a judicial finding of probable cause.
• Abuan vs. People of the Philippines, 536 Phil. 672 (2006) — Cited for the two extrinsic grounds for quashing a search warrant, namely mismatch of place or property and absence of probable cause.
• ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon, 753 SCRA 1 (2015) — Cited, with Punzalan vs. Plata and related cases, for the deferential attitude toward executive determination of probable cause, preserving the DOJ's ability to prosecute on other evidence.

• Sections 155, 168 and 170, Republic Act No. 8293 — Define and penalize trademark infringement and unfair competition; the provisions under which the Secretary of Justice found probable cause against petitioner and recommended filing of Informations.
• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees security against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath with particular description of place and things; the source of the five requisites for a valid search warrant.
• Section 12, Chapter V, A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC — Authorizes Manila and Quezon City Executive Judges to act on PNP, NBI and ACTAF search warrant applications for Intellectual Property Code and other special cases, requiring personal endorsement by agency heads; the rule invoked to quash the warrants for endorsement only by the CIDG Chief.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires certification against forum shopping, disclosure of pending same or similar actions, and reporting within five days of learning thereof, with dismissal and contempt sanctions; the standard applied in finding no willful forum shopping by petitioner.
• Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — Allows assistant heads and subordinates to perform duties specified by superiors unless inconsistent with law; the basis for holding the endorsement duty delegable as ministerial.

Perez, J., Reyes, J., and Jardeleza, J., concur. Velasco, Jr., J. (Chairperson), on official leave.