23.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION VS SAMIR

GR No. 205800, September 10, 2014

FACTS

Petitioner Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Systems Incorporated are copyright owners respectively of
“Microsoft” software, and all corresponding users’ manuals and Microsoft DOS trademarks in the
Philippines; and Adobe Systems copyright relating to all versions and editions of Adobe software. New
Fields (Asia Pacific) Inc., was using counterfeit versions of their software, thus they engaged Orion
Support Inc. to assist in the verification of the information. Michael Moradoz and Norma Serrano, trained
to detect counterfeit software were assigned to confirm the information. PNP-CIDG PSI Ernesto Padilla
and the two witnesses were able to ascertain that the company New Fields Inc. was indeed using
counterfeit software, by using two computers of New Fields by using two computers of New Fields and
getting information about the installed software on the computer, which revealed that they were using
common product identification or serial numbers, an indication that the software is counterfeit; also they
noted that the company used only one installer of the software which were installed on several computers,
numbering about 90 computers. Two search warrants were issued by Judge Amor Reyes and seized 83
computers containing unauthorized copies of Microsoft and/or Adobe software. New Fields then filed for
Motion to Quash, petitioners object for the motion averring that it did not comply with the 3-day notice
rule on motions. The RTC nevertheless granted the Motion to Quash, and quash both warrants, hence they
elevated to the CA which the CA also denied. The petitioners appealed via Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not Judge Amor Reyes committed grave abuse of discretion in granting motion to quash
search warrants.

HELD

The Supreme Court rule that strict compliance with the three-day notice rule may be relaxed in this case.
However we sustain petitioners’ contention that there was probable cause for issuance of a warrant, and
the RTC and CA should have upheld the validity of both warrants.

In this case, we find reason to overturn the rulings of the RTC and CA. since there was grave abuse of
discretion in the appreciation of facts. Looking at the records it is clear that Padilla and his companions
were able to personally verify the tip of their informant. Padilla has been trained to distinguish illegally
reproduced Adobe and Microsoft software. Thus in his affidavit he said that “At least two (2) computer
units are using a common Product Identification Number of Microsoft and Adobe software. This is one
indication that the software being used is unlicensed or was illegally reproduced or copied.” The evidence
on record clearly shows that the applicant and witnesses were able to verify the information obtained from
their confidential source.

Petition was granted, and the orders of RTC and CA were reversed and set aside.