Scribd
Upload
13 views2 pages

CTMC Int'l V Bhagis Int'l Corp

The Supreme Court reviewed a case where CMTC International Marketing Corp. appealed the dismissal of its complaint against Bhagis International Trading Corp. for unfair competition and copyright infringement. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal due to the late filing of the appellant's brief, emphasizing that procedural rules should not hinder substantive justice. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, allowing the petitioner to present its arguments.

Uploaded by

Ro Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views2 pages

CTMC Int'l V Bhagis Int'l Corp

The Supreme Court reviewed a case where CMTC International Marketing Corp. appealed the dismissal of its complaint against Bhagis International Trading Corp. for unfair competition and copyright infringement. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal due to the late filing of the appellant's brief, emphasizing that procedural rules should not hinder substantive justice. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, allowing the petitioner to present its arguments.

Uploaded by

Ro Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CMTC International Marketing Corp. vs. Bhagis International Trading Corp.

G.R. No. 170488 | Dec 10, 2012

Statement/Nature of the Case:


Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Resolutions dated August 19, 20051 and November 15, 20052 of the
Former Special Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 84742.

Facts:
Petitioner, CMTC International Marketing Corporation, filed a Complaint for Unfair
Competition and/or Copyright Infringement and Claim for Damages against respondent,
Bhagis International Trading Corporation, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
The complaint included a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction. On February 14, 2005, the RTC dismissed the complaint, stating
that petitioner failed to establish actual confusion among buyers and that the
trademarks were distinct. The court ruled in favor of respondent, dismissing the case
without costs.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on March 4, 2005, challenging the RTC’s decision. The
Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Notice to File Appellant’s Brief on May 20, 2005, requiring
petitioner to file the brief within 45 days. Despite the notice, petitioner failed to file the
appellant’s brief within the prescribed period. Consequently, on August 19, 2005, the CA
dismissed the appeal for abandonment under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit
Appellant’s Brief, which was 42 days late. The CA denied the motion on November 15,
2005, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in
dismissing the appeal on technical grounds and that substantive justice should prevail
over procedural lapses.

Issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure
to file the appellant’s brief on time, prioritizing procedural technicalities over
substantive justice.
2. Whether petitioner’s appeal should be reinstated in the interest of substantive
justice, considering the alleged errors in the trial court’s decision.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals
for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules must be
respected, they should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice. The
Court found that petitioner’s failure to file the brief on time was due to the negligence of
its counsel, and petitioner should not be deprived of the opportunity to pursue its
appeal.

Ratio Decidendi:
1. Procedural Rules vs. Substantive Justice: The Supreme Court reiterated that
procedural rules are designed to facilitate justice, not to hinder it. While strict
compliance is generally required, exceptions may be made when substantive
justice demands it.

2. Counsel’s Negligence: The Court ruled that the negligence of petitioner’s counsel
in failing to file the appellant’s brief on time should not prejudice petitioner,
especially when there is no participatory negligence on the part of the client.

3. Equity Jurisdiction: The Court exercised its equity jurisdiction to relax the
procedural rules, noting that the dismissal of the appeal would result in a
miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that procedural infirmities should
not override substantive rights.

4. Remand to the Court of Appeals: Since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, it
remanded the case to the CA for further proceedings, allowing petitioner to
present its arguments on the merits of the case.

You might also like