FACTS:

Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi's), a corporation registered under the laws of the State of Delaware, filed an application to register the trademark TAB DEVICE before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) on October 11, 1999. The TAB DEVICE trademark is described as a small marker or tab of textile material, visible while the garment is worn and affixed permanently to the garment's exterior. The trademark examiner rejected Levi's application on the grounds that the tab itself does not function as a trademark and that Levi's cannot exclusively appropriate the tab's use since it is customarily used in the garment industry. Levi's appealed the rejection to the IPO Director of Trademarks, who affirmed the examiner's findings. Levi's then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Levi's then filed an appeal memorandum and provided a list of certificates of registration in other countries covering "nearly identical TAB DEVICE trademark registrations." The IPO Director-General issued a decision rejecting the trademark application, holding that the mark is not distinctive and cannot be distinguished from other similar tabs of textile. The Director-General also disregarded the certificates of registration of Levi's in other countries. Levi's filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) but failed to file within the extended reglementary period. The CA dismissed Levi's petition, and the motion for reconsideration was also denied. Levi's filed a petition for review on certiorari to challenge the CA's dismissal of their petition. The core issue is whether or not the CA gravely erred in dismissing Levi's petition for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely erred in dismissing Levi's CA petition for review on the ground that Levi's filed the CA petition beyond the extended reglementary period.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that the CA erred in dismissing Levi's CA petition for review on the ground that it was filed beyond the extended reglementary period. The Court found that Levi's had compelling reasons to request for an extension of time to file the petition, including the unavailability of the consularized special power of attorney (SPA) due to the closure of the Philippine Consulate Office and the pressure from other urgent professional work. The Court also noted that the CA itself had granted an extension for Levi's first motion for extension, which shows that it recognized the validity of the reasons given by Levi's. Therefore, the dismissal of the CA petition for review was unwarranted.

PRINCIPLES:

• Under the rules of evidence, the Philippine consulate's authentication of a notarized document may be required in order to comply with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

• The court may grant an extension of time to file a petition for review if there are compelling reasons, such as unavailability of necessary documents or pressure from other urgent professional work.

• The court should consider the circumstances and justify the denial of an extension of time to file a petition for review, ensuring that no prejudice will result from the grant of an extension.