GR 22647; (July, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22647 July 30, 1971
THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS AND VEGETABLE OIL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
On September 21, 1960, private respondent Vegetable Oil Industries Corporation (VOIC) filed two applications for registration of the trademarks “EL REY” and “VOIC EL REY & crown device.” The applications were published in the Official Gazette on June 29, 1961. On July 28, 1961, the law firm of Lichauco, Picazo, Agcaoili received a cablegram from the international trademark agents of petitioner Cudahy Packing Company, instructing them to oppose the applications. Pressed for time, the law firm filed a petition for a 30-day extension to file a notice of opposition on July 31, 1961, which the Director of Patents granted.
The law firm filed an unverified notice of opposition on August 25, 1961, and a duly verified notice on September 25, 1961. However, the requisite written power of attorney from Cudahy Packing Company authorizing the law firm was only executed on August 7, 1961, a week after the initial motion for extension was filed. VOIC moved to dismiss the opposition, arguing that when the law firm filed the motion for extension on July 31, it lacked the written authorization required by Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Patent Office.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a notice of opposition by counsel, prior to the formal execution and filing of a written power of attorney, is a fatal defect warranting the dismissal of the opposition.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Director of Patents’ dismissal. The Court held that the requirement of a written power of attorney under Rule 19 is not jurisdictional, especially for a procedural motion like a request for an extension. The Director of Patents had already found the petition for extension meritorious and granted it. The subsequent filing of the formal power of attorney and the verified opposition within the extended period constituted substantial compliance.
The legal logic is that a literal and rigid interpretation of Rule 19 would defeat the realities of law practice, where attorneys often need to act promptly to protect a client’s interests, with formal documentation to follow. The cablegram from the foreign agents demonstrated the petitioner’s clear intent to oppose and to authorize the local firm to act. The motion for extension was a preliminary procedural step that did not prejudice the substantive rights of the respondent. To nullify the entire opposition for this technicality, where no bad faith or prejudice was shown, would elevate form over substance. The Court ordered the Director of Patents to give due course to the petitioner’s notices of opposition.