Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83372:57451&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:43:59+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 205800, September 10, 2014 - MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Petitioners, v. SAMIR FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C. HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO, JESUSITO G. MORALLOS, AND MA. GERALDINE S. GARCIA (DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF NEW FIELDS (ASIA PACIFIC), INC.), Respondents.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Petitioners, v. SAMIR FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C. HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO, JESUSITO G. MORALLOS, AND MA. GERALDINE S. GARCIA (DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF NEW FIELDS (ASIA PACIFIC), INC.), Respondents.
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 28 June 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 116771 and the Resolution2 of the CA dated 30 January 2013. The Decision and Resolution sustained the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21 (RTC) quashing Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913.
Samir Farajallah, Virgilio D.C. Herce, Rachel P. Follosco, Jesusito G. Morallos and Ma. Geraldine S. Garcia (respondents) are the directors and officers of New Fields (Asia Pacific), Inc., a domestic corporation with principal office at Unit 1603, East Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
Padilla was trained to distinguish original from counterfeit software,7 and he saw the screens of the computers used by the OSI staff, including the product I.D. Nos. of the installed software.
They also observed that New Fields had 90 computers in their office with Microsoft software, none of which had the Certificate of Authenticity issued by Microsoft.
The warrants were served on respondents on 24 May 2010. New Fields employees witnessed the search conducted by the authorities. Several items were seized, including 17 CD installers and 83 computers containing unauthorized copies of Microsoft and/or Adobe software.
The Motion [to Quash] failed to comply with the mandatory 3-day notice rule under the Rules of Court. Hence it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for the Issuance of a Status Quo Order on 8 July 2010 wherein they alleged that: (1) they intend to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order; and (2) the Order was not immediately executory.19 Respondents received a copy of the motion the day it was filed.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari 26 under Rule 65 on 8 November 2010 before the Court of Appeals. Petitioners alleged that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion to Quash despite: (1) respondents’ failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement; and (2) the existence of probable cause, and personal knowledge of the warrant applicant.
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.
In Anama v. Court of Appeals,29 we ruled that the three-day notice rule is not absolute. The purpose of the rule is 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.
The evidence on record clearly shows that the applicant and witnesses were able to verify the information obtained from their confidential source. The evidence likewise shows that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. Thus, the requirement of personal knowledge of the applicant and witnesses was clearly satisfied in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 June 2012 and the Resolution dated 30 January 2013 of the Court of Appeals, upholding the 29 June 2010 and 27 August 2010 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913 are declared valid.
1Rollo, pp. 46-61. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
2 Id. at 64-66. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
7 Affidavit of Police Senior Inspector Ernesto V. Padilla. Id. at 205.
29 G.R. No. 187021, 25 January 2012, 664 SCRA 293.
31 Lacson v. MJ Lacson Development Company, Inc., G.R. No. 168840, 8 December 2010, 637 SCRA 505.
32 481 Phil. 550 (2004).
35Local Superior of the Servants of Charity, Inc. v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., 509 Phil. 426 (2005).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.