Microsoft Corporation vs Maxicorp, Inc.

written by Howard

G.R. No. 140946 – 438 SCRA 224 – Mercantile Law – Intellectual Property – Law on Copyright – Probable Cause in Issuing Search Warrant

In 1996, Dominador Samiano, Jr., an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a surveillance against Maxicorp, Inc. He observed that Microsoft Softwares (Windows Operating Systems) were being produced and packaged within the premises of Maxicorp. Samiano, together with a civilian witness (John Benedict Sacriz) then bought a computer unit from Maxicorp. The unit was pre-installed with a pirated copy of Windows. For their purchase, they were issued a receipt, however, the receipt was in the name of a certain “Joel Diaz”. Subsequently, Samiano applied for a search warrant before the RTC. He brought with him Sacriz as witness. He also brought the computer unit they bought as evidence as well as the receipt. He even added an additional witness (Felixberto Pante), a computer technician, who showed the judge that the software in the computer unit bought by Samiano from Maxicorp was pirated. The  RTC judge, convinced that there is a probable cause for a case of copyright infringement and unfair competition committed by Maxicorp, issued the corresponding warrant. Maxicorp assailed the legality of the warrant before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Maxicorp and in its decision it highlighted the fact that the receipt issued was not in Samiano’s or Sacriz’ name hence the proceeding in the trial court was infirm from the outset.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.

HELD: No. The testimonies of the two witnesses, coupled with the object and documentary evidence they presented, are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. From what they have witnessed, there is reason to believe that Maxicorp engaged in copyright infringement and unfair competition to the prejudice of Microsoft. Both NBI Agent Samiano and Sacriz were clear and insistent that the counterfeit software were not only displayed and sold within Maxicorp’s premises, they were also produced, packaged and in some cases, installed there.

The fact that the receipt issued was not in Samiano’s name nor was it in Sacriz’ name does not render the issuance of the warrant void. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation. Thus, it was improper for the Court of Appeals to reverse the RTC’s findings simply because the sales receipt evidencing NBI Agent Samiano’s purchase of counterfeit goods is not in his name.

Read full text