View full case

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAQUITO OCHOA

FACTS:

The Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) filed a special civil action challenging the constitutionality of the Philippines' accession to the Madrid Protocol. IPAP argued that the accession lacked concurrence from the Senate and conflicted with the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code). The Protocol aims to facilitate trademark protection and make managing registered marks easier in different countries.

After assessments and reforms, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) recommended the country's accession to the Protocol. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) also endorsed it. President Benigno C. Aquino III ratified the Madrid Protocol in March 2012, and it entered into force in July 2012.

IPAP contends that the President's accession without Senate concurrence is unconstitutional. They argue that the Madrid Protocol is a treaty and requires Senate concurrence. IPAP also argues that the implementation conflicts with the IP Code, specifically in terms of representation and address for service.

Another petition was filed by the IPAP, challenging the ratification of the Madrid Protocol. They claimed that it violates the IP Code because foreign trademark applicants can file applications without designating resident agents in the country. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the respondents, argued that the IPAP lacks legal standing to challenge the ratification and that there is no urgency for restraining the implementation.

Lastly, the IPAP filed a petition challenging the IPO's practice of accepting and approving applications through the Madrid Protocol without local representation. They argued that this practice violated the IP Code and diminished the rights of intellectual property law practitioners who are members of the IPAP. The court needed to determine if the IPAP had legal standing to file the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the IPAP has legal standing to challenge the implementation of the Madrid Protocol.

  2. Whether the issues raised by the IPAP are of transcendental importance.

  3. Whether the Madrid Protocol involves changes of national policy and requires the Senate's concurrence.

  4. Whether the determination of the DFA Secretary on the classification of the Madrid Protocol as an executive agreement was in grave abuse of discretion.

  5. Whether or not there was a Congressional act that authorized the accession of the Philippines to the Madrid Protocol.

  6. Whether or not the Madrid Protocol is in conflict with the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code).

  7. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to act on the petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

  8. Whether or not the marriage between the parties is void ab initio.

RULING:

  1. The IPAP does not have legal standing to challenge the implementation of the Madrid Protocol. The injury alleged by the IPAP is imaginary, incidental, and speculative, which does not meet the requirement of direct and material injury. Additionally, the interpretation of Section 125 of the Intellectual Property Code by the IPAP is incorrect, as it does not grant anyone the right to represent a foreign trademark applicant. Therefore, the IPAP cannot claim irreparable injury or diminution of rights from the implementation of the Madrid Protocol.

  2. Despite lacking legal standing, the issues raised by the IPAP are of transcendental importance. The Court recognizes the paramount public interest involved in the case as it asserts that the Executive Department has exceeded its authority and encroached on the functions and responsibilities of another branch. The Court has adopted a liberal attitude towards locus standi in cases of transcendental importance, allowing challenges to be heard even by petitioners who do not meet the direct injury requirement.

  3. The Madrid Protocol does not involve changes of national policy and does not require the Senate's concurrence. The Court distinguishes between treaties and executive agreements, noting that treaties require legislative concurrence after executive ratification, while executive agreements do not require legislative concurrence. In this case, the DFA Secretary has the power to determine whether an agreement is to be treated as a treaty or as an executive agreement. It is established that executive agreements may be validly entered into without the Senate's concurrence.

  4. The determination of the DFA Secretary on the classification of the Madrid Protocol as an executive agreement was not in grave abuse of discretion. The Court points out that the Executive has the right to enter into binding agreements without the need for subsequent Congressional approval. The validity of these executive agreements has never been seriously questioned by the courts.

  5. The Court upholds the determination and treatment of the Madrid Protocol as an executive agreement by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), as it is within his power under Executive Order No. 459 and in line with the express state policies on intellectual property. Congress, through the IP Code, has declared a state policy recognizing the importance of an effective intellectual property system, which includes the protection and securing of exclusive rights to intellectual property. The IPAP's assertion that there was no Congressional act authorizing the accession to the Madrid Protocol is incorrect.

  6. The Court finds no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code. The method of registration through the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), as provided in the IP Code, is separate and distinct from the method of registration through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Madrid Protocol. The Madrid Protocol does not amend or modify the IP Code, as applications under the Protocol are still examined according to the relevant national law. The IPOPHL will only grant protection to a mark that meets the local registration requirements.

  7. The Supreme Court held that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage. The Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over such cases.

  8. The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent spouse.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Legal standing refers to the right of appearance in court on a particular question, which may be brought by parties personally injured or concerned citizens, taxpayers, or voters suing in the public interest.

  • A petitioner in a public action must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy and show direct injury as a result of the law or government act being challenged.

  • Locus standi is a procedural technicality that may be waived by the Court in cases of transcendental importance.

  • The assertion of a public right allows a petitioner to challenge an allegedly illegal or unconstitutional action even if they are not directly affected, as long as they represent the public in general.

  • The liberal approach towards locus standi was adopted in cases of transcendental importance, permitting ordinary citizens, legislators, and civic organizations to challenge the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations, and rulings.

  • The difference between treaties and executive agreements: treaties require legislative concurrence, while executive agreements do not.

  • The power of the DFA Secretary to determine the classification of an agreement as a treaty or an executive agreement.

  • The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the need for subsequent Congressional approval.

  • State policy on intellectual property: The State recognizes the importance of an effective intellectual property system, which includes protecting and securing the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations. The use of intellectual property serves a social function, promoting the diffusion of knowledge and information for national development and the common good. (Section 2, IP Code)

  • Power of the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs: The Secretary has the power to determine and treat the accession to international agreements as executive agreements, in accordance with express state policies and within the power granted by law. (Executive Order No. 459)

  • Pacta sunt servanda: All parties to a treaty or executive agreement, regardless of form, are obliged to comply in good faith with their obligations under the agreement. (International principle)

  • The Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases for the declaration of nullity of marriage, among others. (Jurisdiction)

  • A marriage that is void ab initio is one that is considered invalid from the very beginning and has no legal effect. (Void Ab Initio)

  • Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability to be considered as a ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage. (Psychological Incapacity)