FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242755. January 10, 2019.]
EXPONENT MOTOR CORP., petitioner,vs. HONDA GIKEN KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA (ALSO TRADING AS HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242755 — Exponent Motor Corp., Petitioner, v. Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Honda Motor Co. Ltd.), Respondent.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari of the April 27, 2018 Decision and the October 12, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 148808, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for: (i) being factual in nature; and (ii) failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The CA was correct in upholding the trial court's order granting the Motion(to Inspect and Dismantle Seized Items) filed by respondent Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Honda Motor Co. Ltd.) (Honda). The CA aptly pointed out that respondent Honda made it clear in its motion that its purpose was not to destroy the subject seized motorcycles, but to allow the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) representative to inspect the frames of said vehicles to determine whether petitioner indeed infringed upon Honda's registered patent. This was clearly necessary for the proper resolution of the infringement case filed by Honda against petitioner before the IPO.
A reading of the petition would show that petitioner argues that the trial court erred in issuing the Writ of Search and Seizure which was irregularly and improperly issued for lack of probable cause. Petitioner then proceeds to discuss the reasons why it believes that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements for issuing a search and seizure warrant in intellectual property cases. It then concluded that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed writ.
Petitioner is mistaken. It must be recalled that the assailed rulings in the present petition pertains to the CA's affirmation of the trial court's July 25, 2016 Order which granted Honda's Motion(to Inspect and Dismantle Seized Items). Clearly, it was improper for petitioner to have raised the arguments against the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Search and Seizure in the present petition. Moreover, petitioner failed to allege any reversible error committed by the CA in rendering the assailed rulings.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 27, 2018 Decision and October 12, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148808.
The Honorable Elma M. Rafallo-Lingan, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 159, Pasig City, is deleted as party-respondent in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court