GR 186967; (January, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 186967 , January 18, 2017
Divina Palao vs. Florentino International, Inc.
FACTS
Petitioner Divina Palao is the grantee of Letters Patent No. UM-7789 for a utility model. Respondent Florentino International, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation before the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), claiming the model was not new or patentable. The BLA denied the petition. Florentino appealed to the IPO Director General. The appeal’s Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was signed by its counsel, Atty. John Labsky P. Maximo, but the appeal initially lacked a secretary’s certificate or board resolution authorizing the counsel to sign it.
Upon the Director General’s order, Florentino submitted a Secretary’s Certificate dated August 15, 2008. This certificate referenced a board resolution dated August 14, 2008, which authorized the law firm to sign the necessary documents for the appeal. However, Director General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr. dismissed the appeal. He ruled the certificate was defective because it pertained to an authorization granted on August 14, 2008, which was after the appeal was filed on July 30, 2008. Thus, at the time of filing, counsel allegedly lacked authority.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the IPO Director General’s dismissal of Florentino’s appeal for a defective certification of non-forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Palao’s petition and sustained the Court of Appeals. The ruling emphasized that rules of procedure should be tools to facilitate, not frustrate, justice. While the IPO’s Uniform Rules on Appeal require a certification of non-forum shopping, the defect in Florentino’s submission was not fatal. The subsequent submission of the Secretary’s Certificate substantially complied with the rule. The Court noted that the requirement of a certification aims to curb forum shopping, and there was no indication that Florentino engaged in such practice. The belated submission of proof of authority was a mere formal lapse that did not prejudice the substantive rights of Palao.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle of liberality in the application of procedural rules, especially when no substantial rights are impaired and when the lapse is adequately explained or subsequently cured. The Director General’s strict and literal application was thus overturned. The Court held that dismissing the appeal on this technical ground would elevate form over substance. The case was remanded to the IPO Director General for resolution of the appeal on its merits concerning the cancellation of the utility model patent.