Microsoft Corporation vs.

Farajallah
GR No. 205800

PLAINTIFF: Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Systems Incorporated

DEFENDANT: Samir Farajallah, Virgilio Herce, Rachel Follosco, Jesusito Morallos and Geraldine Garcia
DATE: September 10, 2014
PONENTE: J. Carpio
TOPIC:

Facts:

 That Microsoft and Adobe are corporations organized and existing under the law of US
o Microsoft is the owner of all rights including copyright relating to all versions and editions of Microsoft software
and corresponding user’s manuals and registered owner of MS DOS trademarks in the Philippines
o Adobe is the owner of all rights including copyright relating to all versions and editions of Adobe Software
 Samir Farajallah and respondents are the directors and officers of New Fields (Asia Pacific), a domestic corporation with
principal office at Ortigas Center, Pasig City
 Petitioners claim that that in September 2009, they were informed that New Fields was unlawfully reproducing and using
unlicensed versions of their software
o Orion Support was asked by the petitioners to assist in the verification of this information. Hired Serrano and
Moradoz to detect unauthorized copies of Microsoft and Adobe
 Petitioner filed a letter of complaint with the PNP Chief Criminal Investigation and Detection Group – assigned to Inspector
Padilla
 Padilla, Serrano and Moradoz, went to the office of the respondents, using a legitimate business pretext, they were able to
use 2 computers owned by New Fields
o At least 2 computers were using the same product identification and serial numbers – software if being illegally
reproduced
o Used only 1 installer
 Search warrants was filed by Padilla
o Seized several items 17 CDs and 85 computers
 Respondents filed a Motion to Quash 1 of 2 search warrants – motion was received by the Petitioners, RTC allowed them
to file Comment/Opposition
o Alleged that Motion to Quash, failed to comply with the mandatory 3-day notice rule under the ROC
 Respondents was scheduled for hearing on June 11, 2012
o Furnished a copy of the Motion to the petitioners June 10, 1 day before the scheduled hearing – clear violation
of the 3-day notice rule
 RTC quashed both warrants – that petitioners should have identified which specific computer had the pirated software
o Denied petitioner’s MR
 CA – denied petition for certiorari

Issue: W/N the 3day notice rule may be relaxed in this case, YES

Ruling:

We 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.

Compliance with the three-day notice rule

In Anama v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the three-day notice rule is not absolute. The purpose of the ruleis to safeguard the
adverse party’s right to due process. Thus, if the adverse party was given a reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose
it, then strict compliance with the three-day notice rule may be dispensed with.

As correctly pointed out by the CA:

In the instant case, when the court a quoordered petitioners to submit their comment on the motion toquash, it was, in effect, giving
petitioners their day in court. Thus, while the [three]-day notice rule was not strictly observed, its purpose was still satisfied when
respondent judge did not immediately rule on the motion giving petitioners x x x the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments
stated in the motion.