GR 113407; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113407; July 12, 2000
LOTHAR SCHUARTZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, respondents.
FACTS
Multiple foreign inventors, the petitioners, filed separate patent applications with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT). They engaged the law firm Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako to handle their applications. The BPTTT issued Office Actions requiring petitioners to complete certain application requirements. The law firm failed to respond to these actions within the prescribed periods, leading the BPTTT to declare the applications abandoned on various dates in 1986 and 1987.
The law firm discovered the abandonment notices only in December 1987 after dismissing two employees responsible for handling correspondence from the BPTTT. Petitioners, through their counsel, subsequently filed separate petitions for the revival of their abandoned applications between January and March 1988. On January 31, 1991, the Director of Patents denied all petitions for revival, ruling they were filed out of time. Petitioners then filed a consolidated appeal with the Court of Appeals on February 14, 1991.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ consolidated appeal from the denial of their petitions to revive their abandoned patent applications?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. While petitioners correctly argued that their appeal to the Court of Appeals from the Director’s January 1991 resolution was filed within the 15-day reglementary period, this procedural timeliness was rendered irrelevant by the substantive untimeliness of the underlying petitions for revival.
The core legal logic rests on the applicable rules of practice for patent cases. Under these rules, an application abandoned for failure to prosecute may be revived only within four months from the date of abandonment. The records show the petitions for revival were filed several months to over a year after the respective abandonment dates, far beyond the non-extendible four-month period. Consequently, the applications were deemed forfeited by operation of law. The negligence of petitioners’ counsel in missing the Office Actions and the revival deadline binds the clients. The law cannot relieve a party from the consequences of counsel’s unexcused negligence. Therefore, the Director of Patents correctly denied the petitions for revival, and the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the appeal.