CMTC Intl MKTG Corp V Bhagis Intl Trading Corp
CMTC Intl MKTG Corp V Bhagis Intl Trading Corp
CMTC Intl MKTG Corp V Bhagis Intl Trading Corp
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Resolutions dated August 19, 2005 1 and November 15, 2005 2
of the Former Special Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
84742.
The facts of the case follow.
Petitioner instituted a Complaint for Unfair Competition and/or Copyright
Infringement and Claim for Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction against respondent before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati (trial court). 3
On February 14, 2005, the trial court rendered a Decision
filed by petitioner. The fallo of said Decision reads:
After receiving a copy of the trial court's Decision, petitioner seasonably led a
Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals (appellate court) on March 4, 2005. 6
CSHDTE
Thereafter, the appellate court issued a Notice to File the Appellant's Brief on May
20, 2005, which was received by the law oce representing petitioner on May 30,
2005, stating as follows:
Pursuant to Rule 44, Sec. 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure you are
hereby required to le with this Court within forty-ve (45) days from receipt
of this notice, SEVEN (7) legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed
copies of the Appellant's Brief with legible copies of the assailed decision of
the Trial Court and proof of service of two copies upon the appellee/s. 7
However, despite said notice, petitioner failed to le its appellant's brief timely.
Hence, on August 19, 2005, the appellate court issued a Resolution dismissing the
appeal filed by petitioner. The full text of said Resolution reads:
Considering the report of the Judicial Records Division dated 17 August 2005
stating that no appellant's brief has been led as per docket book entry, the
Court RESOLVES to consider the appeal as having been ABANDONED and
consequently DISMISS the same pursuant to Sec. 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. 8
Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, petitioner led its Motion for Reconsideration
with Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief, 9 which was led forty-two (42) days late
from the date of its expiration on July 15, 2005.
On November 15, 2005, the appellate court denied petitioner's Motion
Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief. It ruled that one of
grounds by which the Court of Appeals may, on its own motion or that of
appellee, dismiss the appeal is the failure on the part of the appellant to serve
le the required number of copies of his brief within the time prescribed by
Rules of Court, viz.:
for
the
the
and
the
For this Court to admit the appellant's brief after such wanton disregard of
the Rules would put a strain on the orderly administration of justice.
SDIaHE
As held in the case of St. Louis University vs. Cordero, 434 SCRA 575, 587,
citing Don Lino Gutierres & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 61 SCRA 87:
"It is necessary to impress upon litigants and their lawyers the
necessity of strict compliance with the periods for performing certain
acts incident to the appeal and the transgressions thereof, as a rule,
would not be tolerated; otherwise, those periods could be evaded by
subterfuges and manufactured excuses and would ultimately become
inutile.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief is perforce DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
10
Accordingly, petitioner led a petition for review on certiorari before this Court
questioning the August 19, 2005 and November 15, 2005 Resolutions of the
appellate court. Thus, petitioner presents the following grounds to support its
petition:
A.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT SACRIFICED SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF PROCEDURAL
TECHNICALITIES WITH ITS DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR
FAILURE TO FILE THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON TIME WITHOUT
CONSIDERING AT ALL WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S APPEAL
DESERVED FULL CONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS.
B.
IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, PETITIONER'S APPEAL
SHOULD BE REINSTATED CONSIDERING THAT THE ERRORS OF THE TRIAL
COURT IN RENDERING ITS APPEALED DECISION ARE EVIDENT ON THE
FACE OF THE SAID DECISION AND MORE SO AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF
THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
AICDSa
1.
2.
The trial court did not state the facts upon which it based its
conclusion that petitioner's trademark is strikingly dierent and
distinct from that of defendant's.
3.
4.
The trial court erred in nding that respondent did not pass o
its products as that of petitioner's. 11
TaDCEc
Time and again, this Court has emphasized that procedural rules should be treated
with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of
rival claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time, however, we
have recognized exceptions to the Rules, but only for the most compelling reasons
where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of
justice. 12
I n Obut v. Court of Appeals, 13 this Court reiterated that it "cannot look with favor
on a course of action which would place the administration of justice in a
straightjacket, for then the result would be a poor kind of justice if there would be
justice at all. Verily, judicial orders are issued to be obeyed, nonetheless a non-
Nevertheless, considering that this Court is not a trier of facts, the appropriate
action to take is to remand the case to the appellate court for further proceedings,
for it to thoroughly examine the factual and legal issues that still need to be
threshed out.
TCIHSa
Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per
Special Order No. 1395 dated December 6, 2012.
**
1.
CA rollo, p. 20.
2.
3.
Id. at 83-94.
4.
Id. at 117-124.
5.
Id. at 124.
6.
Id. at 125-126.
7.
CA rollo, p. 18.
8.
Id. at 20.
9.
Id. at 21-23.
10.
11.
Id. at 20.
12.
Osmea v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 188818, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 654,
660.
13.
G.R. No. L-40535, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 546, 554; 162 Phil. 731, 744 (1976).
14.
G.R. No. L-27005, January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 712, 715; 136 Phil. 212, 215
(1969).
15.
16.
Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 188630, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 358, 368.
17.
Id. at 369.