Juan v. Juan Et - Al
Juan v. Juan Et - Al
Juan v. Juan Et - Al
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
614
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
615
PERALTA, J.:
For this Court’s resolution is the Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court dated
January 25, 2016, of petitioner Fernando U. Juan that
seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated May 7,
2015 and Resolution2 dated December 4, 2015 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) dismissing his appeal for failure to comply
with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 44 and Section 1,
Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
The facts follow.
Respondent Roberto U. Juan claimed that he began
using the name and mark “Lavandera Ko” in his laundry
business on July 4, 1994. He then opened his laundry store
at No. 119 Alfaro St., Salcedo St., Makati City in 1995.
Thereafter, on March 17, 1997, the National Library issued
to him a certificate of copyright over said name and mark.
Over the years, the laundry business expanded with
numerous franchise outlets in Metro Manila and other
provinces. Respondent Roberto then formed a corporation
to handle the said business, hence, Laundromatic
Corporation (Laundromatic) was incorporated in 1997,
while “Lavandera Ko” was registered as a business name
on November 13, 1998 with the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI). Thereafter, respondent Roberto discovered
that his brother, petitioner Fernando was able to register
the name and mark “Lavandera Ko” with the Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) on October 18, 2001, the regis-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
_______________
616
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
617
Herein petitioner elevated the case to the CA through a
notice of appeal. In his appeal, petitioner contended that a
mark is different from a copyright and not interchangeable.
Petitioner Fernando insisted that he is the owner of the
service mark in question as he was able to register the
same with the IPO pursuant to Section 122 of R.A. No.
8293. Furthermore, petitioner Fernando argued that the
RTC erred in giving credence to the article of information it
obtained from the internet stating that the Filipino folk
song “Lavandera Ko” was a composition of Suarez in 1942
rather than the actual pieces of evidence presented by the
parties. As such, according to petitioner, such information
acquired by the RTC is hearsay because no one was
presented to testify on the veracity of such article.
Respondent Roberto, on the other hand, contended that
the appeal should be dismissed outright for raising purely
questions of law. He further raised as a ground for the
dismissal of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
_______________
618
Hence, the present petition after the denial of petitioner
Fernando’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner Fernando
raises the following issues:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS ON PURELY TECHNICAL
GROUNDS WAS PROPER CONSIDERING THAT THE CASE
BEFORE IT CAN BE RESOLVED BASED ON THE BRIEF
ITSELF.
B.
WHETHER OR NOT A MARK IS THE SAME AS A
COPYRIGHT.
C.
WHETHER OR NOT FERNANDO U. JUAN IS THE OWNER OF
THE MARK “LAVANDERA KO.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
_______________
4 Id., at p. 45.
619
D.
WHETHER OR NOT AN INTERNET ARTICLE IS SUPERIOR
THAN ACTUAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES.5
According to petitioner Fernando, the CA should have
considered that the rules are there to promote and not to
defeat justice, hence, it should have decided the case based
on the merits and not dismiss the same based on a mere
technicality. The rest of the issues are similar to those that
were raised in petitioner’s appeal with the CA.
In his Comment6 dated April 22, 2016, respondent
Roberto insists that the CA did not commit an error in
dismissing the appeal considering that the formal
requirements violated by the petitioner in the Appellant’s
Brief are basic, thus, inexcusable and that petitioner did
not proffer any valid or substantive reason for his
noncompliance with the rules. He further argues that there
was prior use of the mark “Lavandera Ko” by another,
hence, petitioner cannot be declared the owner of the said
mark despite his subsequent registration with the IPO.
The petition is meritorious.
Rules of procedure must be used to achieve speedy and
efficient administration of justice and not derail it.7
Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of
equitably and completely resolving the rights and
obligations of the parties.8 It is, [thus] settled that liberal
construction of the rules may
_______________
5 Id., at p. 15.
6 Id., at pp. 90-106.
7 Bacolor v. VL Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 204325,
April 18, 2016, 790 SCRA 20.
8 Cometa v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 107, 120; 351 SCRA 294, 307
(2001), citing Casa Filipina Realty Corporation v. Office of the President,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
311 Phil. 170, 181; 241 SCRA 165, 175 (1995), citing Rapid Manpower
Consultants, Inc. v. NLRC, 268 Phil. 815, 821; 190 SCRA 747, 752 (1990).
620
In this case, this Court finds that a liberal construction
of the rules is needed due to the novelty of the issues
presented.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
9 Pagadora v. Ilao, 678 Phil. 208, 222; 662 SCRA 14, 24-25 (2011),
citing Mediserv, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Special Former 13th Division),
631 Phil. 282, 295; 617 SCRA 284, 296-297 (2010).
10 388 Phil. 587, 592-593; 332 SCRA 784, 789-790 (2000). (Citations
omitted)
621
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
_______________
11 Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, 497 Phil. 635, 646; 458 SCRA
325, 338 (2005).
622
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
623
ject of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use. The
former may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be
secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent.” (Pearl &
Dean v. Shoemart, supra, citing the case of Baker v. Selden, 101
U.S. 99; 1879 U.S. Lexis 1888; 25 L. Ed. 841; 11 Otto 99, October,
1879 Term)
It is noted that the subject matter of Exhibit “5” (Annex 5) of
Fernando (IPO certificate of registration) and Exhibit B of
Roberto (Certificate of Copyright Registration) could not be
considered as a literary and artistic work emanating from the
creative mind and/or hand of the herein parties for the simple
reason that the subject work was a creation of the mind of Mr.
Santiago S. Suarez in 1942. Thus, neither of the herein parties
has an exclusive right over the subject work “Lavandera Ko” for
the simple reason that herein parties were not the maker, creator
or the original one who conceptualized it. Section 171.1 defines
the author as the natural person who has created the work. (R.A.
No. 8293) Therefore, it can be said here, then and now, that said
registrations of the word “Lavandera Ko” by the herein parties
cannot be protected by the law, Republic Act No. 8293. Section
172.2 (R.A. No. 8293) is quite crystal clear on this point, it
declares: “Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation,
irrespective of their mode or form of expressions, as well as of
their content, quality and purpose.” Herein parties were not the
creators of the subject word. It was a creation of Santiago S.
Suarez in 1942.
Finally, in the case of Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan v. Court
of Appeals and Lorenzo Tan (G.R. No. 130360, August 15, 2001),
the Supreme Court ruled: “A person to be entitled to a copyright
must be the original creator of the work. He must have created it
by his own skill, labor and judgment without directly copying or
evasively imitating the work of another.” Again, herein parties,
both, miserably failed to prove and establish on how they have
created this alleged work before registering it with the National
Library and the Intellectual Property Office, hence their claim of
ownership of the word “Lavandera Ko” is not conclusive or herein
parties are both
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
624
The above ruling is erroneous as it confused trade or
business name with copyright.
The law on trademarks, service marks and trade names
are found under Part III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, or
the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, while Part
IV of the same law governs copyrights.
“Lavandera Ko,” the mark in question in this case is
being used as a trade name or specifically, a service name
since the business in which it pertains involves the
rendering of laundry services. Under Section 121.1 of R.A.
No. 8293, “mark” is defined as any visible sign capable of
distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service
mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or
marked container of goods. As such, the basic contention of
the parties is, who has the better right to use “Lavandera
Ko” as a service name because Section 165.213 of the said
law, guarantees the protection of trade
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
any such use of a similar trade name or mark, likely to mislead the public,
shall be deemed unlawful.
625
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
626
As such, “Lavandera Ko,” being a musical composition
with words is protected under the copyright law (Part IV,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
_______________
17 <http://www.himig.com.ph> <http://kahimyang.info/kauswagan/
articles/1420/today-in-philippine-history>.
18 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 678 Phil. 358, 425;
662 SCRA 152, 212 (2011), citing Francisco, Ricardo J., 7 The Revised
Rules of Court in the Philippines, Evidence, Part I, p. 69, 1997 ed.
19 Id., citing Herrera, Oscar M., Remedial Law, Vol. V, p. 72, 1999.
20 619 Phil. 155, 164-166; 604 SCRA 163, 174-176 (2009). (Citations
omitted)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
628
629
630
The article in the website cited by the RTC patently
lacks a requisite for it to be of judicial notice to the court
because such article is not well and authoritatively settled
and is doubtful or uncertain. It must be remembered that
some articles appearing in the internet or on websites are
easily edited and their sources are unverifiable, thus, sole
reliance on those articles is greatly discouraged.
Considering, therefore, the above premise, this Court
deems it proper to remand the case to the RTC for its
proper disposition since this Court cannot, based on the
records and some of the issues raised by both parties such
as the cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of registration
issued by the Intellectual Property Office, make a factual
determination as to who has the better right to use the
trade/business/service name, “Lavandera Ko.”
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court dated January 25,
2016, of petitioner Fernando U. Juan is GRANTED.
Consequently, the Decision dated May 7, 2015 and
Resolution dated December 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals
are REVERSED and SET
631
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/19
2/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001778fbca2ce02bdd5cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19