DRUGMAKER’S LABORATORIES, INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 128766
October 9, 2006
-
versus -
DOMINADOR JOSE y NAGANO,
LLOYD LABORATORIES, INC., and
NIDA
BALAJADIA,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our Resolution is the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42747.
The facts are:cralaw:red
Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc. (Drugmaker), herein petitioner, is a
domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products being sold by Dofra Pharmaceuticals (Dofra) and Jasper
Enterprises (Jasper). Dofra and Jasper are owned by
Dominador Jose, one of herein respondents. They sell drugs
like Doframycetin, Ehloromercin, Hisercon, Ampicin, and Dofratus.
Lloyd Laboratories, Inc. (Lloyd), also a respondent, is a domestic
corporation likewise engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products for Dofra and Jasper. Lloyd is managed by Nida
Balajadia, also a respondent.
The instant controversy stemmed from a complaint for unfair
competition[1] filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) by
petitioner Drugmaker against Lloyd, respondent, Dofra and Jasper.
It appears that three former employees of Dofra and Jasper informed
petitioner that respondent Lloyd had been paid by Dofra and Jasper to
manufacture drugs bearing the same label being used exclusively by
petitioner for its own drugs. These drugs so labeled were to be
sold by respondent Lloyd to Dofra and Jasper.
chan robles virtual law library
Acting on petitioner’s complaint, the NBI, on July 7, 1995, sent poseur
buyers to the business premises of Dofra and Jasper where they
purchased drugs. These were then submitted to Cecille Baylon,
petitioner’s quality control supervisor, for testing. She
found that the samples obtained by the NBI were not manufactured by
petitioner.
That same day, NBI Special Investigator Rene Sagun applied for a search
warrant with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Manila,
presided by then Executive Judge William Bayhon, now
deceased. After conducting searching questions and answers,
and finding probable cause to charge respondents for unfair
competition, Executive Judge Bayhon issued on that same day Search
Warrant No. 95-275.
Immediately, the NBI personnel implemented the search warrant.
Seized at the premises of Dofra and Jasper were 40 boxes of drugs
manufactured by Lloyd but bearing the labels used by petitioner.
At the instance of petitioner, respondent Dominador Jose was charged
with unfair competition before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila
(MeTC), Branch 5, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 300410-SA.
Meanwhile, upon motion of the prosecution, Executive Judge Bayhon
issued an Order dated June 28, 1996 directing that Search Warrant No.
95-275 be quashed on the ground that the representative of the Bureau
of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD), responsible for the testing of
drugs, was not present during the hearing of the NBI’s application for
search warrant. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, but Executive Judge Bayhon denied the same.
Going back to Criminal Case No. 300410-SA before the MeTC, on September
27, 1995, the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the case for
petitioner’s failure to prove that its patented drugs have been
manufactured by respondent Lloyd. On December 13, 1995, the
MeTC dismissed Criminal Case No. 300410-SA. This prompted
petitioner to file with the RTC, Branch 15, Manila, a petition for
certiorari, alleging that the MeTC, Branch 5 acted with grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 300410-SA.
However, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
chan robles virtual law library
Incidentally, petitioner also filed with the BFAD an administrative
complaint against respondent Nida Balajadia for manufacturing fake
drugs, docketed as BFAD Case No. 006-95. However, the BFAD
dismissed the complaint. It found that respondent Lloyd did not
manufacture spurious drugs.
Relative to the quashal of Search Warrant No. 95-275, petitioner filed
with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that
Executive Judge Bayhon committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing
Search Warrant No. 95-275.
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision before us, dismissed the
petition, holding that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal
and that there is no more reason to review the “quashal of the search
warrant” as it has “no more practical legal effect.”
chan robles virtual law library
We agree with the Court of Appeals. Indeed, with the dismissal by
the MeTC of Criminal Case No. 300410-SA for unfair competition against
respondent Dominador Jose, sustained by the RTC, the issue of whether
the quashal of Search Warrant No. 95-275 by Executive Judge Bayhon is
with grave abuse of discretion has become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
PUNO, J., Chairman, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ., concur.
[1] Defined and penalized under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code.
|