CASE 2016-0025: LEVI STRAUSS & CO., PETITIONER, -VERSUS- ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 206779, 20 APRIL 2016, BRION JUSTICE) (SUBJECT: FAILURE TO FILE APPEAL ON TIME; SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED) (BRIEF TITLE: LEVI STRAUSS VS. BLANCAFLOR)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, WE HEREBY DENY THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI. THE RESOLUTIONS DATED AUGUST 13, 2012 AND APRIL 17, 2013, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 123957 ARE AFFIRMED. COSTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT ARE THE BASIC FACTS?
PETITIONER FILED WITH IPO A TRADEMARK APPLICATION FOR TAB DEVICE TRADEMARK WHICH IT DESCRIBED AS A SMALL MARKER OR TAB OF TEXTILE MATERIAL, APPEARING ON AND AFFIXED PERMANENTLY TO THE GARMENT’S EXTERIOR AND IS VISIBLE WHILE THE GARMENT IS WORN.
IPO EXAMINER DENIED SAID APPLICATION. LEVI STAUSS FILE AN APPEAL WITH THE IPO DIRECTOR GENERAL. THEIR APPEAL WAS ALSO DENIED. THEY HAVE UNTIL 29 MARCH 2012 TO FILE AN APPEAL WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS.
ON MARCH 28, 2012, LEVI’S FILED A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION) TO FILE A VERIFIED PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE CA; IT SOUGHT AN ADDITIONAL 15 DAYS, OR UNTIL APRIL 13, 2012, TO FILE THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.27 LEVI’S COUNSEL AVERRED THAT IT NEEDED THE EXTENSION BECAUSE OF PRESSURE FROM OTHER EQUALLY IMPORTANT PROFESSIONAL WORK AND IT NEEDED TO GATHER FURTHER EVIDENCE.28
ON APRIL 13, 2012, LEVI’S FILED A SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;29 IT ASKED THIS TIME FOR AN ADDITIONAL 15 DAYS, OR UNTIL APRIL 28, 2012, TO FILE THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.
LEVI’S CLAIMED THAT WHILE THE DRAFT OF THE PETITION WAS ALMOST COMPLETE, THERE WAS YET AGAIN PRESSURE FROM OTHER EQUALLY URGENT PROFESSIONAL WORK; AND THE CONSULARIZED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (SPA) NEEDED FOR THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND ITS VERIFICATION WERE STILL EN ROUTE FROM THE UNITED STATES.30 LEVI’S CLAIMED THAT THE DELAY IN THE SPA CONSULARIZATION WAS DUE TO THE CLOSED PHILIPPINE CONSULATE OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO, USA, FROM APRIL 5, 2012 TO APRIL 9, 2012, IN OBSERVANCE OF THE HOLY WEEK AND THE ARAW NG KAGITINGAN HOLIDAY.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A RESOLUTION34 DISMISSING LEVI’S PETITION OUTRIGHT. THE CA HELD THAT LEVI’S FAILED TO PRESENT A COMPELLING REASON FOR THE CA TO GRANT THE SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION.35 ACCORDING TO THE CA, LEVI’S SHOULD HAVE SECURED THE NECESSARY SPA EARLIER AND ANTICIPATED THE CLOSURE OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSULATE OFFICE DUE TO THE PHILIPPINE HOLIDAYS.36 FURTHER, PRESSURE FROM OTHER EQUALLY URGENT PROFESSIONAL WORK IS NOT A COMPELLING REASON FOR AN EXTENSION.
IS CA’S DISMISSAL OF LEVI’S PETITION VALID?
YES.
MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS ARE NOT GRANTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT.
LAWYERS SHOULD NEVER PRESUME THAT THEIR MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OR POSTPONEMENT WILL BE GRANTED OR THAT THEY WILL BE GRANTED THE LENGTH OF TIME THEY PRAY FOR.51
FURTHER, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT A SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION IS NOT GRANTED, EXCEPT WHEN THE CA FINDS A COMPELLING REASON TO GRANT THE EXTENSION.52
WAS CA CORRECT WHEN IT HELD THAT LEVI’S FAILED TO PRESENT A COMPELLING REASON TO GRANT THE SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION?.53
YES.
LEVI’S, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, ONLY DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE FILING OF THE CA PETITION FOR REVIEW AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE FIRST FIFTEEN-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING.54 LEVI’S LATE DECISION NECESSARILY DELAYED THE EXECUTION AND NOTARIZATION OF THE SPA AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PHILIPPINE CONSULATE OFFICES’ AUTHENTICATION OF THE SPA. LEVI’S CANNOT EXCUSE ITS DELAY BY CITING ITS FAILURE TO ANTICIPATE THE PHILIPPINE CONSULATE OFFICE’S CLOSURE DUE TO THE OBSERVANCE OF THE PHILIPPINE HOLIDAYS. CERTAINLY, LEVI’S OWN DELAY IS NOT A COMPELLING REASON FOR THE GRANT OF A SECOND EXTENSION TO FILE A CA PETITION FOR REVIEW.
LEVI’S ASSUME THAT ITS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION WOULD BE GRANTED SINCE THE CA DID NOT IMMEDIATELY ACT ON THE FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION? IS THIS ASSUMPTION CORRECT?
NO.
IN GO V. BPI FINANCE CORPORATION IT WAS HELD THAT THAT A PARTY CANNOT USE THE CA’S DELAYED ACTION ON A MOTION FOR EXTENSION AS AN EXCUSE TO DELAY THE FILING OF THE PLEADING AS A PARTY CANNOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION ON HOW HIS MOTION WOULD BE RESOLVED.
“IN FACT, FACED WITH THE FAILURE TO ACT, THE CONCLUSION IS THAT NO FAVORABLE ACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE AND THE MOTION HAD BEEN DENIED.”56
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL?
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS A STATUTORY RIGHT, NOT A NATURAL NOR A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.57
THE PARTY WHO INTENDS TO APPEAL MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES AND RULES GOVERNING APPEALS; OTHERWISE, THE RIGHT OF APPEAL MAY BE LOST OR SQUANDERED.58
THE PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE PERIOD PERMITTED BY LAW IS NOT ONLY MANDATORY, BUT JURISDICTIONAL, AND THE FAILURE TO PERFECT THAT APPEAL RENDERS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT FINAL AND EXECUTORY.59
IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE>
YES.
IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES, THE COURT HAS RELAXED THE GOVERNING PERIODS OF APPEAL IN ORDER TO SERVE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.60
THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PRESENT ITSELF TO BE AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE TO WARRANT THE RELAXATION OF THE RULES ON PROCEDURE.
PETITIONER PLEADS THAT A LIBERAL, NOT LITERAL, INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES SHOULD BE THE COURT’S POLICY GUIDANCE. DOES PETITIONER HAS BASIS?
NO.
PROCEDURAL RULES ARE NOT TO BE DISDAINED AS MERE TECHNICALITIES. THEY MAY NOT BE IGNORED TO SUIT THE CONVENIENCE OF A PARTY.
ADJECTIVE LAW ENSURES THE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS THROUGH THE ORDERLY AND SPEEDY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
RULES ARE NOT INTENDED TO HAMPER LITIGANTS OR COMPLICATE LITIGATION. BUT THEY HELP PROVIDE FOR A VITAL SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WHERE SUITORS MAY BE HEARD IN THE CORRECT FORM AND MANNER, AT THE PRESCRIBED TIME IN A PEACEFUL THOUGH ADVERSARIAL CONFRONTATION BEFORE A JUDGE WHOSE AUTHORITY LITIGANTS ACKNOWLEDGE. PUBLIC ORDER AND OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE ARE WELL SERVED BY A CONSCIENTIOUS OBSERVANCE OF THE RULES OF 61 PROCEDURE X X X.
CAN THE SC STILL REVIEW THE PETITION ON THE MERITS?
NO.
THE RULING OF THE IPO BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY AFTER THE PERIOD TO APPEAL EXPIRED WITHOUT THE PERFECTION OF LEVI’S’ APPEAL.
THE COURT, THEREFORE, MAY NO LONGER REVIEW IT.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND THE TOPIC”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND FORUM SHOPPING”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 