DIVINA PALAO vs. FLORENTINO III INTERNATIONAL, INC.

FACTS: On July 30, 2008, Florentino appealed to the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office. This appeal's Verification and Certification of NonForum Shopping was signed by Atty. John Labsky P. Maximo (Atty. Maximo) of the firm Balgos and Perez. However, Florentino failed to attach to its appeal a secretary's certificate or board resolution authorizing Balgos and Perez to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. Thus, on August 14, 2008, the Office of the Director General issued the Order requiring Florentino to submit proof that Atty. Maximo or Balgos and Perez was authorized to sign the Verification and Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping.

In his Order dated September 22, 2008, Intellectual Property Office Director General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr. (Director General Cristobal) dismissed Florentino's appeal He noted that the Secretary's Certificate pertained to an August 14, 2008 Resolution issued by Florentino' s Board of Directors, and reasoned that the same Certificate failed to establish the authority of Florentino's counsel to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping as of the date of the filing of Florentino's appeal (i.e., on July 30, 2008).

Florentino then filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In its assailed January 8, 2009 Decision,22 the Court of Appeals faulted Director General Cristobal for an overly strict application of procedural rules. Thus, it reversed Director General Cristobal's September 22, 2008 Order and reinstated Florentino' s appeal.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the September 22, 2008

Order of Intellectual Property Office Director General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr., and in reinstating respondent Florentino III International, Inc.'s appeal.

HELD: The need for a certification of non-forum shopping to be attached to respondent's appeal before the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office is established. Section 3 of the Intellectual Property Office's Uniform Rules on Appeal specifies the form through which appeals may be taken to the Director General.

These requirements notwithstanding, the Intellectual Property Office's own Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings (which governs petitions for cancellations of a mark, patent, utility model, industrial design, opposition to registration of a mark and compulsory licensing, and which were in effect when respondent filed its appeal) specify that the Intellectual Property Office "shall not be bound by the strict technical rules of procedure and evidence.

Given these premises, it was an error for the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office to have been so rigid in applying a procedural rule and dismissing respondent's appeal. It is reasonable, therefore-consistent with the precept of liberally applying procedural rules in administrative proceedings, and with the room allowed by jurisprudence for substantial compliance with respect to the rule on certifications of non-forum shopping-to construe the error committed by respondent as a venial lapse that should not be fatal to its cause.