GR 171053; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171053 ; October 15, 2007
SEHWANI, INCORPORATED and/or BENITA’S FRITES, INC., Petitioner, vs. IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines, filed a complaint before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Bureau of Legal Affairs against petitioners Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s Frites, Inc. for violation of intellectual property rights. Respondent claimed ownership of the internationally well-known “IN-N-OUT” trademarks, used since 1948, and discovered that petitioner Sehwani had obtained a Philippine registration for a similar mark in 1993. Petitioners argued that respondent lacked legal capacity to sue and that no statutory ground for cancellation of their registration was proven.
The Bureau Director ruled in favor of respondent, ordering the cancellation of Sehwani’s trademark registration and a cease and desist order against both petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They subsequently appealed to the IPO Director General.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal to the IPO Director General for being filed out of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. The rules of the IPO mandate that an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order or decision. The records conclusively showed that petitioners received the Bureau Director’s Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on October 29, 2004. Their appeal, filed on November 15, 2004, was therefore one day late. The IPO Director General correctly dismissed the appeal for tardiness.
The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed as mere technicalities, as they are essential to the orderly administration of justice and the prevention of needless delays. While petitioners invoked equity, the Court ruled that equity cannot be applied in the presence of a clear and specific provision of law. The statutory period for appeal is jurisdictional; failure to comply renders the assailed decision final and executory. The subsequent finding by another IPO Director General that petitioners were guilty of unfair competition did not alter this procedural outcome. The dismissal of the appeal on technical ground was thus proper.