View full case

FERNANDO U. JUAN v. ROBERTO U. JUAN

FACTS:

Respondent Roberto U. Juan asserts that he started using the name and mark "Lavandera Ko" in his laundry business in 1994, obtaining a copyright certificate for it in 1997. He formed Laundromatic Corporation to handle the business, registering "Lavandera Ko" as a business name in 1998. However, he discovered that his brother, petitioner Fernando U. Juan, registered the same name and mark with the Intellectual Property Office in 2001. Respondent filed a petition for various claims, seeking to establish his right to the mark. The RTC initially issued a preliminary injunction against petitioner but later dismissed the petition, stating that neither party had the right to exclusive use of the mark since it was originally created by Santiago S. Suarez. The RTC also cancelled the copyright certificates. Petitioner appealed to the CA, but the appeal was dismissed for procedural reasons. Petitioner now files a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the CA's decision.

The dispute is centered on the ownership of the mark "Lavandera Ko" between petitioner Fernando U. Juan and respondent Roberto Angeles. The CA dismissed petitioner's appeal purely on technical grounds, prompting the present petition. Petitioner argues that the case should have been decided on the merits rather than being dismissed due to procedural shortcomings. Respondent argues that the dismissal was proper due to noncompliance with formal requirements and claims that prior use of the mark by another party negates petitioner's ownership despite his subsequent registration. The Supreme Court emphasizes the need for a liberal construction of the rules, given the unique issues presented and petitioner's reasonable effort at compliance. The RTC, based on information found on the internet, ruled that neither party is entitled to use the mark "Lavandera Ko" because the copyright of the song "Lavandera Ko," composed by Santiago S. Suarez in 1942, belongs to him and his heirs. The RTC lifts the injunction and declares the heirs of Santiago S. Suarez as the rightful owners of the mark. The RTC's decision is grounded on provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, which considers the author of a work as the natural person who created it.

In this case, the subject mark and work were created by Mr. Santiago S. Suarez, making him the sole owner. The parties involved in the case, as stated in their affidavits, are making false claims to Mr. Suarez's original work. Section 21 of R.A. 8293 states that any new technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity, with an inventive step and industrial applicability, is patentable.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals on purely technical grounds was proper.

  2. Whether a mark is the same as a copyright.

  3. Whether Fernando U. Juan is the owner of the mark "Lavandera Ko."

  4. Whether an internet article is superior to actual evidence submitted by the parties.

RULING:

  1. The dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals on purely technical grounds was improper. The Supreme Court found that the case should be resolved on its merits rather than dismissed on technicalities.

  2. A mark is not the same as a copyright. The Supreme Court clarified that trade or service names and copyrights are governed by different parts of Republic Act No. 8293.

  3. The case was remanded to the RTC for proper disposition and factual determination as to who has the better right to use the trade/business/service name "Lavandera Ko."

  4. An internet article is not superior to actual evidence submitted by the parties. The Supreme Court implied that judicial notice should not be taken of information that is not well and authoritatively settled or that is doubtful or uncertain, and particularly criticized reliance solely on internet sources.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Liberal construction of rules: Technicalities should not stand in the way of equitable and complete resolution of disputes (Aguam v. CA).

  2. Distinction between trademark and copyright: Part III of Republic Act No. 8293 governs trademarks, service marks, and trade names, while Part IV governs copyrights.

  3. Judicial notice: Limited to matters of common and general knowledge, well and authoritatively settled facts, and not subject to reasonable dispute.

  4. The importance of resolving cases on merits rather than technicalities in achieving substantial justice.

  5. Verification of internet articles: Courts should be cautious in taking judicial notice of information obtained from the internet due to issues of verifiability.