الفلبين

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 8: Criminal Enforcement

Supreme Court of the Philippines [2022]: Petron Corporation and People of the Philippines v. William Yao, Sr., Luisa C. Yao, William Yao, Jr., Richard C. Yao and Roger C. Yao, G.R. No. 243328

Date of judgment: March 18, 2021

Issuing authority: Supreme Court of the Philippines

Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Criminal)

Subject matter:Competition, Trademarks

Plaintiffs: Petron Corporation and People of the Philippines.

Defendants: William Yao, Sr., Luisa C. Yao, William Yao, Jr., Richard C. Yao and Roger C. Yao

Keywords: Unfair competition, Transitory/continuing crimes, Lack of jurisdiction

Basic facts:  Petron Corporation, a major supplier of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the Philippines, owns the trademark “GASUL” and is the sole authorized entity to refill, use, sell, and distribute Petron Gasul LPG containers. Petron discovered that Masagana Gas Corporation was allegedly engaged in unauthorized refilling, sale, and distribution of Petron Gasul LPG cylinders. Surveillance and test-buys by the National Bureau of Investigation and Petron’s agents confirmed these activities in both Trece Martires City, Cavite and Makati City. As a result, criminal charges for unfair competition under Section 168 in relation to Section 170 of the Intellectual Property Code were filed in both Trece Martires City, Cavite and Makati City courts against the defendants, who were directors and officers of Masagana Gas Corporation. Since the Information for Unfair competition was filed first in Trece Martires City, Cavite, the court has already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the same to the exclusion of all others. The Makati Regional Trial Court eventually quashed the information, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the prior filing in Trece Martires City, Cavite, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court held that the crime of unfair competition is a transitory or continuing offense. Since the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City, Cavite had already taken cognizance of the case, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City was divested of jurisdiction to entertain the same offense. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts. The Supreme Court clarified that the acts of imitation and sale, even if committed in different locations, constitute a single continuing offense motivated by a single criminal impulse. Thus, only one criminal case should proceed, and the subsequent information was properly quashed.

Relevant holdings in relation to Criminal Enforcement: 

Unfair competition as a continuing offense: The Supreme Court emphasized that unfair competition under Section 168 of the Intellectual Property Code is a continuing or transitory crime. This means that the essential elements of the offense may occur in different jurisdictions, but they are considered part of a single criminal act if motivated by a single criminal impulse.

Jurisdiction: For transitory crimes like unfair competition, criminal proceedings may be initiated in any court where any element of the offense was committed. However, once a court has taken cognizance of the case, other courts are divested of jurisdiction over the same offense, even if acts of the same crime also occurred in their territory.

Elements and enforcement: The Court reiterated that what is punished in unfair competition is the act of deceiving the public by passing off one’s goods as those of another, and that the series of acts (imitation, sale, distribution) are mere instruments to carry out the primary intention to deceive. Further, it is the owner of the trademark who is the proper party to file criminal actions for unfair competition, not the members of the public who have been deceived.

Relevant legislation: Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 110-127, Revised Rules of Court)