Datuin v. Ozaeta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Philippine Letters Patent No. 5496 was issued to Jalwindor Manufacturers Inc. for a process for the manufacture of triplex glass. Florentino C. Ozaeta, doing business as Ohio Safety Industries, filed a petition with the Philippines Patent Office seeking to cancel these letters patent. Ozaeta alleged that the invention was not new or patentable, and that it had been previously patented or described in publications more than one year before the application was filed. Ozaeta later amended his petition to include the allegation that he had been, was, or would be injured by the grant of the patent. Jalwindor Manufacturers Inc., the patentee, opposed the cancellation, asserting that the invention was new and patentable under Republic Act No. 165. 2. Procedural History: The patentee filed a motion to dismiss the cancellation petition, arguing that Ozaeta lacked standing because he had stated the invention was unworkable, thus he could not suffer damage. The Director of Patents denied this motion and set the case for hearing. The patentee then filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the denial, which was not explicitly granted or denied. Subsequently, the patentee filed the motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by Ozaeta and ultimately denied for lack of merit. The patentee filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals from the orders denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the patentee's appeal, finding that it was not perfected within the prescribed period, as 25 days had elapsed from the receipt of the order appealed from to the filing of the motion for reconsideration. This Court, however, agreed to treat the present proceeding as a special civil action. The petitioner argues that mere technicality should not defeat his right to appeal, that the Patent Office implicitly granted his motion for extension by considering the subsequent motion for reconsideration, and that his appeal is meritorious because the private respondent himself admitted the invention was unworkable, thus he could not have suffered injury. The Supreme Court, however, found that the questioned orders were interlocutory and thus not appealable, citing Harrison Foundry & Machinery vs. Harrison Foundry Workers 'Association, and dismissed the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for not being perfected within the prescribed period. Whether the orders denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration are appealable.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appealability of interlocutory orders: The questioned orders denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition for cancellation of letters patent and his subsequent motion for reconsideration are merely interlocutory in nature. Interlocutory orders are not appealable until a final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other, as explicitly provided by Rule 41, Section 2, of the Rules of Court. Allowing an appeal from such orders would stay the progress of an action, which is contrary to the rules of orderly procedure. The proper recourse for a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order is to continue with the trial on the merits and, if the decision is adverse, to reiterate the issue on appeal. This ensures that the appellate court reviews all issues only after a final determination of the case. On the perfection of appeal: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for not being perfected on time. The records show that the notice of appeal was filed on March 4, 1976, while the order denying the motion for reconsideration was received on February 27, 1976. This indicates a delay in the perfection of the appeal. Even if the motion for extension was deemed granted, the period for filing the motion for reconsideration was calculated by the Court of Appeals as 25 days from the receipt of the order appealed from to the filing of the motion for reconsideration, which is beyond the reglementary period. The petitioner's claim that the motion for extension was deemed granted due to the subsequent acceptance and denial of the motion for reconsideration does not cure the defect in the timely perfection of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
Interlocutory orders are not appealable until a final judgment or order is rendered. The proper procedure is to continue with the trial on the merits and, if the decision is adverse, to reiterate the issue on appeal.