Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22822)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22822)
Facts:
Gregoria Palanca v. The American Food Manufacturing Company and Tiburcio Evalle, G.R. No. L-22822, August 30, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zaldivar, J., writing for the Court. On May 14, 1958, petitioner Gregoria Palanca filed with the Philippine Patent Office an application to register the trademark “LION and the representation of a lion’s head” for bechin (food seasoning), alleging use since January 5, 1958. The application was opposed by respondent The American Food Manufacturing Company, which claimed prior adoption and use of a similar “LION and representation of a lion” mark on the same product since August 3, 1953.After hearing, the Director of Patents rendered a decision on June 14, 1961 sustaining the opposition and rejecting Palanca’s application on the ground that opposer was the prior user. Counsel for Palanca was furnished with a copy on June 16, 1961; no appeal from that decision was taken within the reglementary period.
On December 14, 1961 Palanca filed a petition with the Patent Office to set aside the June 14, 1961 decision under Section 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, alleging fraud and/or negligence by her former counsel, Atty. Bienvenido Medel — specifically, that he failed to file a memorandum, kept her ignorant of proceedings and of the adverse decision, and thereby deprived her of the opportunity to appeal or to present newly discovered evidence (including testimony by Ricardo Monfero and invoices purporting to show that earlier sales were of a different brand, “Lion‑Tiger”).
Following a hearing on the petition, Director of Patents issued Resolution No. 20 dated October 14, 1963 denying the petition to set aside the June 14, 1961 decision; a motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting both the denial of the petition to set aside and, at times in her brief, the correctness of the original June 14, 1961 decision itself. The Court treated the appeal as challenging only the October 14, 1963 resolution and proceeded to review whether the Director of Patents erred in refusing to set aside the judgment.
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence under Section 2, Rule 38, Rules of Court, sufficient to set aside the June 14, 1961 decision of the Director of Patents?
- Was the June 14, 1961 decision properly treated as final because counsel received notice and no timely appeal was filed, so that the present appeal must be confined to the October 14, 1963 resolution denying the petition to set aside?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)