“Liberality is the general rule in the administrative proceedings.”

Manila Hotel Corporation Vs. Office of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and Le Comité Interprofessional Du Vin De Champagne G.R. No. 241034. August 3, 2022

Manila Hotel Corporation applied for the registration of its trademark CHAMPAGNE ROOM before the IPOPhil. Le Comite Interprofessional Du Vin De Champagne, CIVC for brevity opposed the application. The IPO Adjudication officer ruled in favor of Manila Hotel Corporation. The respondent CIVC received a copy of the decision on February 2, 2018 and filed a Motion for extension of Time to File Appeal to the IPO-BLA Director praying for an extension of 10 days from February 12, 2018 or until February 22, 2018 within which to file an appeal. The Respondent CIVC on Inter Partes Proceedings (Revised Inter Partes Rules) does not prohibit the filing of a motion for extension to file an appeal. Petitioner Manila Hotel Corporation filed an Opposition to respondent CIVC’s Motion asserting that the revised Inter Partes Rules do not provide for an extension of the period within which to appeal the decision of the IPO Adjudication Officer to the IPO-BLA Director. The IPO-BLA Director granted CIVC an extension of time to file its comment on the appeal within a non-extendible ten days.

The petitioner went to the Court of Appeals by virtue of Rule 65 questioning the extended period of time. The CA ruled in favor of the IPO-BLA’s decision. Hence, this case decided by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the decision of the IPO-BLA Director which granted an extension of time to file an appeal. To quote the decision:

” It is true that the right to appeal, being merely a statutory privilege, should be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. But it is equally true that in proceedings before administrative bodies, the general rule has always been liberality. Administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their object to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.”

Republic Act No. 8923, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, is a law enacted pursuant to the State policy “to streamline administrative procedures of registering patents, trademarks, and to enhance the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.

Pursuant to RA 8923, the Rules and Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings was promulgated and governed the proceedings relating to opposition to trademark applications, petitions to cancel trademark registrations, petitions to cancel invention patents, utility model registrations, industrial designs registrations or claims, and appeals before the BLA and office of the Director General.

“Section 2(a) of Rule 9 would readily show that while the rules expressly state that the 10-day period for filing a comment to the appeal is non-extendible, there is no similar express prohibition on moving for an extension of time for filing an appeal. Similarly, the same rule is silent as to whether an extension of time for filing an appeal is allowed and merely states that the appeal shall be immediately denied if it is filed out of time and/or not accompanied by the payment of the applicable fee. Because the rules did not categorically and explicitly prohibit the filing of a motion for extension of time to file an appeal, the grant of such extension is not proscribed by law. Had the Inter Partes Rules intended to strictly prohibit and disallow the filing of such motion for extension, it would have expressly and unequivocally stated such prohibition, in the same manner that it had explicitly disallowed the extension of the 10-day period to file a comment to the appeal.”