Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 90827 July 19, 1990
PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G.,
petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JOB B. MADAYAG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, and MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
G.R. No. 85297 July 19, 1990
PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JOB B. MADAYAG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 145, and MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
G.R. No. 75067 July 19, 1990
PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G., petitioner,
vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
G.R. No. 75562-63 July 19, 1990
PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G., petitioner,
vs.
MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Siguion Reyna & Montecillo and Ongsiako for petitioner.
Carpio Villaraza & Cruz and Florencio Z. Sioson for private respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
This is a petition to set aside the June 23, 1989 order of the respondent court which granted a motion to dismiss filed by Mil-Oro Manufacturing Corporation in an infringement of patent or trademark case.
The antecedent facts which led to the filing of this petition may be briefly mentioned.
Puma Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler K.G. is a West German corporation which has not averred that it is doing business in the Philippines, it filed two (2) cases with Philippine Patent Office, now Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfers, namely:
(a) Inter Partes Case 1259 opposing the registration of Mil-Oros Trademark "Puma and Device for sports socks in the Principal Register. The case was filed on June 18, 1979;
(b) Inter Partes Case 1675 for cancellation of the March 30, 1977 Certificate of Registration issued in favor of Mil-Oro for the mark "Puma Label" covering sports socks and belts. The case was filed on September 7, 1982.
On July 25, 1985, before the consolidated Inter Partes cases could be completed, Puma filed Civil Case No. 11189 an Infringement or Patent or Trademark Case with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Regional Trial Court Judge denied Mil-Oros motion to dismiss and granted Puma's application for preliminary injunction.
Mil-Oro went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari and prohibition in the Infringement Case. On June 23, 1986, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court and directed it to dismiss the Infringement Case. Puma came to this Court on August 26, 1986 where the petition for review in the Infringement Case was docketed as G.R. No. 75067.
In the meantime, the Bureau of Patents decided the Inter Partes cases in favor of Mil-Oro declaring it as the prior and actual adopter and user and, therefore, the rightful owner of the trademark "Puma and Device" for belts and sports socks. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Patent Office decision was affirmed. On September 19, 1986 or less than one (1) month since G.R. No. 75067, the Court of Appeals' decision in the Infringement Case was elevated to this Court. Puma filed the second case docketed as G.R. Nos. 75562-63, questioning the Court of Appeals' decision in the Inter Partes Cases.
Puma's not having mentioned a need for the consolidation of the two (2) cases filed by it with this Court less than one (1) month apart on basically the same issue, resulted in the two cases proceeding separately.
On February 26, 1988, the Court, through its Third Division decided G.R. No. 75067, the Infringement Case in favor of Puma. The La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez (129 SCRA 373 [1984]) rule on internationally known branch names was applied and the Court of Appeals reversed. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Makati so that it could continue hearing the Infringement Case.
On September 7, 1988, this Court through its Second Division, decided G.R. No. 75562-63 on the Inter Partes cases in favor of Mil-Oro thus affirming the July 30, 1986 decision of Court of Appeals and the earlier decision of the Bureau of Patents which declared Mil-Oro prior and actual user and, therefore, owner of the trademark "Puma and Device." The appeal of Puma to the Court of Appeals was found to have been filed late. According to the appellate court, there were also significant omissions in the appeal. Puma did not furnish a copy of its notice of appeal to Mil-Oro There was no statement of material dates and no verification.
Puma filed a motion for reconsideration on October 8, 1988. It was at this point when the decision in the other case it had earlier filed, G.R. No. 75067, was brought to the Court's attention and extensively treated. After taking into account the fact that the decision in the Inter Partes Cases had already become final for failure to file a timely and correct appeal and finding that what was decided in G.R. No. 75067 was a denial of motion to dismiss and the issuance of preliminary injunction, this Court denied a motion for reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 7556263 on May 15, 1989 with FINALITY. The entry of judgment was recorded on June 7, 1989.
While this Court was deliberating on the motion for reconsideration in the Inter Partes petition, where the parties filed comment on the motion, reply, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, and voluminous annexes, the Regional Trial Court was hearing the Infringement Case remanded to it.
The Regional Trial Court considered Mil-Oros motion to dismiss and/or motion for preliminary hearing on defendant's affirmative defense together with Puma's opposition and corresponding documentary evidences presented by both parties. On June 23, 1989 the Regional Trial Court dismissed the Infringement Case. Hence, this petition.
It should be mentioned that Puma, in addition to the two (2) petitions earlier filed, also filed on October 18, 1988 a third petition, G.R. No. 85297, asking this Court to compel the respondent Judge to issue a writ of injunction in the Infringement Case remanded to it. After considering lengthy pleadings, numerous annexes and side issues such as failure to furnish the other party with copies of pleadings, motion for contempt, motion to expunge etc., the Court on May 24, 1989 dismissed the petition. The Court's displeasure with parties who precipitately rush to the Supreme Court whenever a ruling on an incidental matter is issued or who bring actions which lead to piece-meal determinations was expressed in the resolution.
Considering the circumstances surrounding this petition, the Third Division decided to bring it to the Court en banc.
The petitioner in the instant case — GR No. 90827 — has failed to show any reversible error in the questioned decision of the public respondent. It has nobody to blame but itself for having allowed the decision in the Inter Partes cases to become final.
The same issue raised in the Infringement Case — who owns the disputed trademark insofar as belts and socks are concerned was extensively tried in the Bureau of Patents. As stated by the respondent court:
There can be no quarrel that there was a judgment on the merits rendered by the Phil. Patent Office, a quasi-judicial body having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this case. Indeed, this previous adversary action and the case at bar involve Identity of parties, of subject matter and causes of action. In fine, the Phil. Patent Office too has jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate the issue of ownership of trademarks in furtherance of its functions in determining registrable trademarks (Sec. 25, Republic Act 166), in both the Principal and Supplemental Registers.
The determination of the Phil. Patent Office, whose finding was affirmed by no less than the Supreme Court definitely disposes the issue on ownership of the trademark 'PUMA & DEVICE' for sports socks and belts. Thus this declaration must be respected and followed by this Court being an inferior court under the hierarchy of positions. Indeed the doctrine of RES JUDICATA becomes operative, as the principle of finality of judgments extends not only to Courts but likewise to executive agencies performing quasi- judicial functions. The dictum in B.F. Goodrich Inc. v. WCC, 159 SCRA 355, is emphatic ... (Rollo — 90827, p. 26)
The respondent court found no need to receive evidence concerning belts and sports socks because the same evidence had already been presented by Puma and Mil-Oro in the other cases. The decision having become final, the factual issues had been laid to rest.
Apart from the failure to show any reversible error in the questioned decision, the instant petition appears to have been filed late.
According to Puma, it received the respondent court's order dated June 23, 1989 on July 4, 1989. A motion for reconsideration was filed on July 18, 1989. The Judge denied the motion for reconsideration on October 10, 1989. Puma received the denial on October 16, 1989. The petition for review was filed on November 16, 1989 or seventeen (17) days later. Puma is vague about the nature of its action because the petition is entitled as one for review but the body of the petition claims grave abuse of discretion. If it is a petition for review, it was late. If it is a petition for certiorari, there is no grave abuse of discretion and, therefore, it cannot take the place of a late petition for review.
CONSIDERING the failure of the petitioner to show that the conclusions of the respondent court are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition.
Cruz, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
