Manly v Dadodette EnterprisesSept. 20, 2005Ynares-Santiago, J.Short Version:Manly obtained a search warrant against Dadodette because it claimed the latter held its products in violation of its copyright. Dadodette filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the ground that such goods were not copyrightable. Which they weren’t. Despite the issuance of certificates of registration and deposit, , when there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted products are not original creations but are readily available in the market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality will not be presumed and the trial court may properly quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause. Facts:Special Investigator Eliezer Salcedo of the NBI applied for a search warrant before the RTC of QC, based on information that Dadodette and/or Hermes Sports Center were in possession of goods, the copyright of which belonged to Manly Sportswear. Judge Estrella Estrada issued the search warrant.

Dadodette moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that the sporting goods they had are ordinary and common, and not protected under the IP Code. RTC granted the motion to quash. MR denied. CA affirmed MR denied. Hence this petition for review on certiorariIssues:WON Manly’s products are copyrightable, and thus, WON the search warrants were valid (No)Ratio:The copyrighted products are not original creations of Manly and thus are not among the classes of work enumerated under Sec. 172 of RA 8293.

The copyright certificates issued in favor of Manly constitute prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. However, no presumption of validity is created where other evidence exists that may cast doubt on the copyright validity. Hence, when there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted products are not original creations but are readily available in the market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality will not be presumed and the trial court may propery quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause.

Besides, no copyright accrues in favor of Manly despite issuance of the certificates of registration and deposit, as the latter, as provided by Sec. 2, Rule 7 of the Copyright Safeguards and Regulations, are purely for

recording the date of registration and deposit of the work, and are not conclusive as to copyright ownership. Petition denied.Gabe.