G.R. No. L-19531; August 10, 1967
THE CLOROX COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and GO SIU GIAN, respondents.

FACTS

On April 7, 1959, respondent Go Siu Gian filed an application with the Patent Office for registration of the trademark “OLDROX” for a whitening/bleaching agent, claiming use since February 1, 1959. The application was published in the Official Gazette on April 25, 1960. On September 21, 1960, within the 30-day period, petitioner The Clorox Company, through its counsel, filed an unverified notice of opposition. On January 6, 1961, the Director of Patents issued an order dismissing the opposition on the ground that the Clorox Company failed to file the required verified notice of opposition within the allowed period. Upon notice, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion dated January 10, 1961, advising that a verified opposition had been timely filed on November 16, 1960, but it was misfiled under the record of another inter partes case (No. 200) due to an error in the covering letter. Respondent Go Siu Gian opposed this motion. Before the motion was acted upon, petitioner filed a petition for relief on January 26, 1961, alleging mistake or excusable negligence by its counsel and employee. On February 12, 1962, the Director of Patents issued a resolution denying both the motion and the petition for relief and ordered the issuance of the Certificate of Registration for “OLDROX” to Go Siu Gian. The Clorox Company appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Director of Patents erred in dismissing the opposition on the ground of failure to file a verified opposition on time.
2. Whether the Director of Patents erred in denying the motion and petition for relief from the dismissal order.

RULING

1. Yes, the Director of Patents erred. The Supreme Court held that the verified opposition was filed on time. Although submitted with a covering letter erroneously designating another case, the pleading itself reached the proper official within the prescribed period. A covering letter is not part of the pleading, and misfiling due to a clerk’s error does not equate to non-filing. There was substantial compliance with the law.
2. Yes, the Director of Patents erred. The Court ruled that the petition for relief, filed before the dismissal order became final, could have been treated as a motion for reconsideration. The grounds of mistake and excusable negligence warranted setting aside the order, which was entered not on the merits. Dismissing the motion on the technicality that it was labeled a petition for relief constituted an abuse of discretion. The Court rejected the argument that petitioner could pursue a cancellation proceeding instead, as opposition and cancellation are alternative remedies, and petitioner had the right to choose the opposition proceeding.
The order and resolution of the Director of Patents were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Patent Office for further proceedings. Costs were assessed against private respondent Go Siu Gian.