J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ Resolutions dated March 8, 2018 and May 21, 2018 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 11429 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for a proper resolution on the merits with dispatch.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

IN THIS CASE THE UNION  MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ADVERSE DECISION OF THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR WITHIN 10 DAYS. WHEN THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THEIR MOTION, THE UNION FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE C.A. 15 DAYS AFTER THEY RECEIVED THE DENIAL. C.A. DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY AFTER 10 CALENDAR DAYS AND THUS THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT  THE C.A. IS WRONG. UNDER RULE43 OF THE RULES OF COURT THE PERIOD OF APPEAL IS 15 DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THE DECISION OF THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR. THE 10-DAY PERIOD IN ARTICLE 276 SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE ADVERSE PARTY MAY MOVE FOR A RECONSIDERATION FROM THE DECISION OR AWARD OF THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS.

“Under Article 276 of the Labor Code, the award or decision of voluntary arbitrators shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from notice.20 On the other hand, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal from the judgment or final orders of voluntary arbitrators must be made within 15 days from notice.21 With these, the Court has alternatively used the 10-day or 15-day reglementary periods. 22 In Guagua National Colleges v. CA, 23 the Court En Banc settled the confusion and clarified that the 10-day period in Article 276 should be understood as the time within which the adverse party may move for a reconsideration from the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrators.24 Thereafter, the aggrieved party may appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, …..”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the March 27, 2015 Decision and the September 11, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133652 are AFFIRMED with the modification that in addition to the payment of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, petitioner Emzee Foods Inc. is hereby ORDERED to CEASE and DESIST from using “ELARZ LECHON,” “ELAR LECHON,” “PIG DEVICE,” and “ON A BAMBOO TRAY” on its products.

So Ordered.“

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SPOUSES LONTOC SINCE 1970 HAS BEEN USING THE TRADEMARK “ELARS LECHON” FOR ROASTED PIGS. IN 1989 THEY REGISTERED A CORPORATION ELARFOODS INC AND MARKET THEIR ROASTED PIGS UNDER THE MARK “ELARS LECHON”. PETITIONER ALSO USED THE MARK “ELARZ LECHON”. IN 2001, RESPONDENT CORPORATION FILED REGISTRATION OF THEIR MARK. THEREAFTER RESPONDENT SUED PETITIONER FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND VIOLATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. ULTIMATELY, IPO RULED AGAINST PETITIONER. C.A. AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE OWNER OF THE MARK WERE THE LONTOC SPOUSES AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEIR ESTATE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS TO RESPONDENT CORPORATION. THUS RESPONDENT CORPORATION HAS NO PERSONALITY TO FILE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM. SUPREME COURT SAID SINCE ITS INCORPORATION RESPONDENT CORPORATION HAS BEEN USING SAID MARK. BY REASON OF RIGHT OF FIRST USE, APPLICABLE AT THAT TIME, IT IS THE OWNER OF SAID MARK. ALSO THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS NEED NOT BE IN WRITING.

It likewise bears stressing that even prior to the registration of the subject trademarks, the respondent has been consistently using said marks since its incorporation in 1989. Hence, even under the law applicable at that time, namely, Section 2-A of R.A. No. 166,69 respondent’s consistent use of the subject trademarks confirms its ownership thereof.

XXXXXXXXXX

Notably, this lacuna was filled by IPO Director General Blancaflor who explained that the fact of the transfer may not be disproven by the absence of a written assignment. A trademark, like any incorporeal right may be disposed of not only by way of formal assignment.78 More importantly, the subject trademarks were not yet registered when respondent started doing business under the Elar’s Lechon brand. 79 Neither was there a pending application for the said trademarks. Besides, under Article 162480 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 147581 of the same Code, the assignment of incorporeal rights, like an unregistered mark, is perfected by mere consent without need of a written contract. Thus, what matters is that from the time of respondent’s incorporation until present, respondent has used and exclusively appropriated the subject trademarks as its own. 82”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 16, 20 17 and November 20, 2017 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 51 in SPL. PROC. No. 2391 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City for further proceedings with dispatch.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS, COMPULSORY HEIRS,  FAILED TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON A PROBATE OF A WILL. THEY WERE DECLARED IN DEFAULT. SUPREME COURT SAID AN ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT DOES NOT APPLY IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS SINCE THESE ARE NOT CONTENTIOUS LITIGATIONS.

“However, Sec. 3, Rule 9 does not apply in probate proceedings. A careful reading of Sec. 3 reveals that an order of default avails only in litigious proceedings. Thus, it cannot be validly issued in a special proceeding such as the probate of a will. The Court already made this clarification in the early case of Riera v. Palmaroli34 as follows:

Now what is the meaning or “judgment rendered upon default,” as used in section 513? The reference is of course to the default mentioned in section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure. x x x A default, such as is there intended, can only arise in contentious litigation where a party who has been implcaded as a defendant and served with process fails to appear at the time required in the summons or to answer at the time provided by the rules of the court. The proceeding to probate a will is not a contentious litigation in any sense, because nobody is impleaded or served with process. It is a special proceeding, and although notice of the application is published, nobody is bound to appear and no order for judgment by default, is ever entered. If the application is not opposed, the court may allow the will on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only (sec. 631, Code Civ. Proc.), provided none or the reasons specified in section 634 of the Code or Civil Procedure for disallowing the will are found to exist. If any interested person opposes the probate, the court hears the testimony and allows or disallows the will accordingly. From such judgment any interested person may appeal to the Supreme Court within twenty clays. (Sec. 781, Code Civ. Proc.) Though the action taken by a Court of First Instance in thus allowing or disallowing a will is properly denominated a _judgment, it is not a judgment rendered upon default even though no person appears to oppose the probate. 35 (emphases supplied).

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.