Title
Manila Hotel Corp. vs. Office of the Director, Bureau of Legal Affairs, Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 241034
Decision Date
Aug 3, 2022
Manila Hotel's "CHAMPAGNE ROOM" trademark opposed by CIVC; IPO allowed appeal extension, upheld by CA and SC, citing procedural flexibility and justice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 241034)

Procedural and Factual Background

Manila Hotel applied to register the trademark CHAMPAGNE ROOM (Application No. 4-2013-003052). CIVC filed an opposition (Inter Partes Case No. 14-2013-00372) alleging that "Champagne" is a protected controlled appellation of origin and that the mark would falsely suggest a connection with CIVC, mislead consumers as to geographic origin and quality, and be confusingly similar to CIVC’s trade name. The IPO Adjudication Officer rendered a Decision dated December 22, 2017 dismissing CIVC’s opposition.

IPO Adjudication Officer’s Decision

The Adjudication Officer concluded that the term "CHAMPAGNE" had become generic in many contexts and that use of CHAMPAGNE ROOM for restaurant and food services would not suggest an association with the Champagne region’s wine production or with CIVC’s trade name. The officer relied on examples of non-wine commercial use and concluded the mark did not mislead as to geographic origin and was registrable, dismissing CIVC’s opposition.

Motion for Extension and IPO-BLA Orders

CIVC received the Adjudication Officer’s Decision on February 2, 2018 and filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal, seeking ten additional days from February 12 to February 22, 2018. The IPO-BLA Director granted the motion by Order dated February 13, 2018, providing the ten‑day extension. The Director then issued a March 12, 2018 order directing the adverse party (Manila Hotel) to file its comment within a non-extendible ten-day period, and furnished Manila Hotel with CIVC’s appeal.

Petition to the Court of Appeals and Its Ruling

Manila Hotel petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the IPO-BLA Director in granting the extension and giving due course to CIVC’s appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, applying a liberal construction of IPO procedural rules and holding that the Revised Inter Partes Rules did not expressly prohibit an extension for filing an appeal and that allowing the appeal served substantial justice.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the IPO-BLA Director’s Orders granting CIVC’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal and giving due course to the appeal—i.e., whether the Director committed grave abuse of discretion in doing so.

Governing Legal Principles and Standards of Review

The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and must generally be perfected in the manner prescribed by law, but also emphasized the well-established administrative-law principle that procedural rules before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies should be liberally construed to promote just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations. The standard for grave abuse of discretion was defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

Statutory and Regulatory Interpretation (Section 2(a), Rule 9)

Section 2(a), Rule 9 of the Revised Inter Partes Rules (as provided in the record) prescribes a ten-day period to file an appeal to the Director and expressly states that the ten-day period for the adverse party to file a comment is non-extendible. The Court performed a textual analysis: the rule expressly makes the comment period non-extendible but does not similarly declare the appeal period non-extendible. Because the rules are silent as to whether extensions of the appeal period are allowed, and because the rule contains an express prohibition only for the comment period, the Court concluded that extensions for filing an appeal are not expressly proscribed.

Application of Administrative Liberality and Precedent

The Court relied on its precedents (including Palao v. Florentino III International, Inc. and Birkenstock Orthopaedie GmbH v. Phil. Shoe Expo Marketing Corp.) that administrative tribunals are not bound by strict technicalities and that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly where such application would subvert substantial justice. Given that the Inter Partes Rules did not explicitly forbid motions for extension to file appeals and that the IPO-BLA Director is tasked with managing inter partes proceedings, the Director’s grant of a short extension—after finding meritorious reasons and resulting in the timely filing of the appeal memorandum—was within the scope of administrative discretion and not a capricious or whimsical act amounting to grave abuse.

Rejection of Petitioner’s Strict-Construction Argument

Manila Hotel’s argument for strict application—that procedural rules for administrative appeals must be observed literally and that any extension is impermissible—was rejected. The Court found that the casus omissus argument (that omission of a prohibition implies an intentional omission) supported CIVC’s position rather than petitioner’s. The Court also held the IPO-BLA Director did not exceed authority by allowing the appeal, since the rules did not categorically forbid such a motion and administrative bodies are afforded latitude to interpret and apply the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms