IPOPHL Bureau of Legal Affairs - Public Consultation re: the Proposed Amendments to

the Revised Rules and Regulations on Administrative Complaints for Violation of Laws
Involving Intellectual Property Rights (IPV Rules)

March 25, 2024 8:00 am to 12:00nn

ATTY. YEL : Hello, once again everyone. We would like to

acknowledge the presence of our Deputy

Director General, Attorney Ann Claire

Cabochan, welcome ma’am. [Stakeholders

clapping]. Right now that we are done with our

health break, we’ll proceed with the question

and answer or open forum, may I invite the

adjudication officers of the Bureau of Legal

Affairs to sit up front, so we can address the

concerns or the suggestions of our

stakeholders. Alright, we have our Division

Chief, Attorney Josephine Alon, and my co-

adjudication and hearing officer again, Attorney

Carmiel, and I’m Attorney Claire, and we also

have Attorney Leonardo Limbo, also one of the

adjudication and hearing officers. Alright, we

may now begin, there are microphones around

or if you need a microphone just raise your

hand, please. Good morning sir.

ATTY. : Good morning. Attorney ______ from Federis

Law, can we go back to the period to file the

answer.

ATTY. GONZALES : Here? Or…

ATTY. : About the pending case, the proposed

amendment.

ATTY. GONZALES : Okay.

ATTY. : So, 10 days, under the rules of court, the

Respondent has given 30 days to file the

answer. And another 30-day extension under

the IPC rules. The Respondent has given 30

days period subject to a 45-day extension; I

think that pending period is quite problematic,

especially considering the fact that we have to

submit the Judicial Affidavit and the relevant

evidence. So, I think…can we have more

liberal period to file an answer? Can we state

the information regarding a motion for

 extension? And how many motex or period to

file the extension period? Thank you.

ATTY. ALON : Thank you, Attorney _______. Actually we’ve

been doing this already since for the filing the

answer, it’s not actually 10 days. Wala naman

naging problema, except of course will take

note of your comment to provide you more

days for filing of the answer, but we’ve been

doing this 10-day period to file the answer.

ATTY. : Okay. So, parang…

ATTY. LIMBO : There’s no prohibition for motion for extension.

ATTY. GONZALES : Any regards to the motion for extension,

there’s no ________ from division so that’s

also ________ bases and depending whether

there’s _________ grant motion for extension,

because we all know it’s not a privilege or a

right to have an extension or a postponement.

So that's also subject to the discretion of the

hearing officer.
ATTY. QUIMSING : Hi, good morning. My name is Attorney Jasmin

Quimsing from Reyes ____ Associates. My

question and concern regarding the inclusion

of the Judicial Affidavit, I believe this is

pursuant to the revised rules of court. But,

considering that our goal is to simplify admin

procedures, we feel that this makes it even

harder, considering the Philippines is quite

notorious for having stringent requirements for

cancellation of opposition cases, especially if it

involves foreign entities which our firm handles

a lot of. So we were concerned about how is

Judicial Affidavit supposed to be a hostile if the

party executing it is abroad and the lawyer

examining him or us will be here in the

Philippines. And considering for instance that

we are the Respondents, to be able to comply

with the 10-day rule for filing of the answer and

to attach the Judicial Affidavits, we feel that this

makes cancellation of opposition cases and

defenses more difficult, especially for foreign

 entities to exert their rights here in the

Philippines.

ATTY. GONZALES : Alright, we’ll take note of that comment

regarding with respect to note the answer of

the Complaint and to Judicial Affidavit. Thank

you, Attorney Jasmin.

ATTY. GONZALES : Yes?

ATTY. ROSALES : Attorney Samantha Rosales from Bengzon

Negre Untalan. I guess my comment are a bit

________. So we will go to section 1B on the

filing and service. What would the proof of

electronic filing be? Will that be our screenshot

of the email that we sent or the

acknowledgement email received from the

Intellectual Property Office?

ATTY. GONZALES : We'll give the wording of here in the first

paragraph, the complaint shall be deemed filed

as of the date of the electronic transmission as

received by the Bureau. So in line with that

 sentence, that would be the automatic receipt

or the acknowledgement receipt sent by the

Bureau upon your filing by email. So in the

same thread.

ATTY. ROSALES : And then in addition to that, there's also a

portion that says the hard copy must be an

exact copy, but that hard copy must also

include the proof of electronic filing and proof

of payment. So because the proof of electronic

filing and proof of payment cannot be filed

together with the electronic copy, it can't be the

exact copy of the pleading filed because it

would not contain the proof of... it's just the

wording perhaps the include, perhaps should

be just accompanied by or...

ATTY. GONZALES : So more of semantics?

ATTY. ROSALES : Yes and then on Rule 2, Section 4, it requires

the complainant to include the email addresses

of the parties. But what if the email address of

 the respondent is not known or the respondent

does not have an email address?

ATTY. GONZALES : That manifestation effect may be included in

the complaint that there is no email or no

knowledge of the existing email address of the

Respondent.

ATTY. ROSALES : And then with regard to the receipt, submission

of proof of payment, will this affect the inclusion

of the Rule 2, Section 6, which requires the

parties to submit to the Bureau a copy of the

official receipt and present the original copy for

comparison? Or is this still required here?

ATTY. GONZALES : Sorry, can you repeat that the first portion of

the proof of electronic receipt, correct?

ATTY. ROSALES : Sorry, this is... because the current Rule 2,

Section 6 of the rules on IPV requires the

parties to submit to the Bureau a copy of the

official receipt and present the original copy for

comparison. So will this be dispensed with

 considering the parties are supposed to submit

a copy of the proof of payment together with

the physical copy of the complaint?

ATTY. GONZALES : Alright, so given the electronic payments, upon

filing your pleading, there is a SOA or

electronic statement of account sent to you,

proof of payment with respect to that SOA. So

to answer your question, if the proposed

amendments will be in effect already, then yes,

there is a supersedence of that requirement

under Rule 2, Section 6. Thank you for pointing

it out.

ATTY. ROSALES : And then finally, in the filing of the answer, it

requires also the submission of proof of

payment. Proof of payment for the

Respondent.

ATTY. GONZALES : If there is any motion for extension or similar

motion or pleading that requires payment.

ATTY. ROSALES : It must be submitted together with the

answer?

ATTY. GONZALES : Yes. Here, this one. Motion for extension, I

assume you're asking because for filing of the

answer, there's no required payment unlike

with the complaint. So yes, this is just in case

there will be a motion for example, the motion

for extension, this will require the payment. So

for us to take cognizance of the answer, the

motion fee for that has to be paid also. That's

the purpose of this inclusion.

ATTY. ROSALES : Just a general comment on experiences with

the IPV rules. That it's not included in the

amendments, but a general comment. I'm

having a very difficult time getting a written

execution. So I have a pending motion that's

been pending for the last 3 years. So just, I

mean, under the current rules, it's a motu

proprio or upon. So we filed a motion, it's been

pending for such a long time. So I think there

was some confusion on how to, because at the

 end of the day, the case wasn't straightforward.

It's from the BLA and then went to the US. And

then it got, it finally issued the finality. And I

think there's some confusion because there are

several in different levels, the decisions of the

other person. So it's not clear, I think, on how

or who's supposed to be issuing the right. So,

just a general comment.

ATTY. GONZALES : Alright. So, well, you did say that you filed a

motion already. So I assume that the follow-

ups will be with respect to that specific case.

So we'll let you, or we'll allow you to make

those follow-ups properly with the BLA. I'm

sorry we can't address it directly in this public

consultation, but thank you for the comment.

ATTY. MARK : Hi, good morning. Attorney Mark from _______

Can we go back to section 2 regarding the

requirement of verification? This one, any

pleading file, this pertains to an initiatory

meeting of the BLA?

ATTY. GONZALES : Yes.

ATTY. MARK : Thank you.

ATTY. GONZALES : Any other comments or questions,

suggestions?

ATTY. : Further to the previous question or suggestion,

we asked that you specify that it's only an

initiatory meeting that is required to be verified.

Because I think as it stands, other meetings

would have to be covered by this notification of

verification.

ATTY. GONZALES : Thank you for the comment. We'll make note of

that.

ATTY. MARIAN : Hi, I’m Attorney Marian from Quisumbing. I just

wanted to ask about apostilled documents. I

assume that if, for example, let's say an

Special Power of Attorney was executed at the

court, it should also be authenticated with

apostilled. In the IPC rules, there is a specific

 statement that apostilled documents can be

submitted after the filing of an initiatory

meeting. So would it be possible to have a

similar statement for the IPC rules?

ATTY. GONZALES : Yes, we'll make note of that, thank you. The

counterpart provision from the IPC rules. Yes,

correct, thank you.

ATTY. ALON : Before your other questions, essentially, these

recent amendments to the IPV rules would

actually institutionalize the measures that have

been implemented during the COVID

pandemic, such as the filing of the pleadings

via email and other submissions via email, and

also the contact for the hearing via video

conference or virtually. So also, if you can read

this, this is already represented during the

presentation of Attorney Mariel and Attorney

Carmiel. The substantial amendments would

include the attachment of Judicial Affidavits

and relevant evidence. And second, for party

and the whole to be entitled to notices of

 subsequent proceedings before there would be

no notices of subsequent proceedings for the

Respondent who was declared in default. And

third, the submission of a hard copy of the

initiatory pleadings after filing the same via

email, because the noncompliance of these

modes may be a ground for the dismissal of

the case for the Complainant or for the

Respondent to be declared in default. And

number four, on the contempt provision where

it is now expressly stated that the resolution of

the contempt petition shall be signed by the

director. So those are the essential

amendments to the IPV rules. Thank you.

ATTY. GONZALES : No comments on the online hearing and the

option to the online hearing? And that is a joint

request, some of the stakeholders often make

mistake regarding that just because that

requested online hearing they expect that it will

be held online without a confirmation with other

parties. It’s also one point of the online hearing.

 No more questions? Or comments? Going

once? Twice? Yes? Go ahead.

ATTY. ESPINO : Hello, I am _____ Espino from Veralaw.

Actually I just wanted to reiterate the previous

asked questions regarding the time frame. I

just consider the time frame of the leniency just

because considering the four kinds of data

______ portion of the IP cases and especially

to the apostilled documents and all of those

authentications for the consular and other

offices, that’s it.

ATTY. GONZALES : Thank you. Nothing further? Alright, We'll

actually be also providing a Google Form link

where if ever once you go home later or the

office you might think of any comments or

suggestions, there will be a Google Form link

where you can input comments and

suggestions per provision. So we'll flash that

link or QR code with the link later on. Thank

you so much everyone for your suggestions

and comments. [Stakeholders clapping]. So

 that concludes our open forum and Q&A. May

we call now upon our Deputy Director General,

Attorney Ann Claire Cabochan for the closing

remarks. Thank you so much, Madame for

your presence. [Stakeholders clapping].

ATTY. ANN CLAIRE CABOCHAN : So good morning everyone. I hope that you

found the proposed amendments to be

something that would be helpful. We take note

of the comments you have made. As is the

practice in government, we always give our

stakeholders the time to also submit any

further written comments about the period of

the event. Is it five days? Until April 14. So if

there is something that you would like to add,

but be assured that whatever you have also

articulated this morning is part of the records of

consultation and will be something that we will

consider. But ultimately of course the

government agency concerned makes the final

version. But always with due respect for all the

points given. So I would like to thank all of you

for being here, as earlier stated by Director

General Barba, this initiative of the Bureau of

Legal Affairs is ultimately for you, our

stakeholders. And so I would like to commend

the Bureau of Legal Affairs headed by Director

Nathaniel Arevalo who is upstairs but doing

something else. It is ASEAN-Canada Free

Trade Agreement Negotiation. So they have a

video conference with Canada and of course

with ASEAN because the Philippines co-chair

ACAFTA. But we are joined by Assistant

Director Christine Canlapan here and of course

to the very capable presenters, your BLA

adjudication officers. So thank you for

organizing this consultation. The IPOPHL has

long since delved into the modernization of its

systems and processes as a way of keeping up

with the times. We have always told ourselves

that we also have to accelerate the way we

respond to technological advancements. We

know that our laws cannot keep up. But there

are certain rules that are consistent with the

general legal framework which we can talk a

little. And of course as has been said earlier,

there are some that have in fact been already

instituted while the lockdowns were ongoing.

So the BLA shares this commitment as it

definitely shows. First with the amendment of

the rules and regulations on inter-parties cases

and now with this very timely amendment to

the IPV rules. I know that there are a lot of

talks going on about changing laws, about

changing regulations. I think all of us are

lawyers in the room and we know that no law

can be there in perpetuity. So as Thomas

Jefferson has said, no constitution can be there

forever. And it would be ridiculous for man to

be clothed in a suit he wore when he was a

child when he is already becoming an adult. So

we will have to grow with whatever other

factors affect the way we do our work. But

certainly we would like to listen to you and this

is precisely why we called for public

consultation. And the IPOPHL commitment is

always to hear you out, to make the laws also,

the rules I mean, and aiming in such a way that

it does not, knowing the work that you do and

 the work of our adjudication officers, it will not

be something that will add to the burden. So it

has to be something that, well the rule should

be also responsive to the time. So thank you

again and I will look forward to any further

comments you may have. And when these

rules do become effective in the near future,

we count on you to help us implement them.

So, maraming salamat.[Stakeholders clapping].

ATTY. GONZALES : Thank you so much Deputy Director General

and we are formally closing now the event.

Thank you very much attorneys, fellow lawyers

for attending the public consultation. And as I

said earlier, we have a QR code for the

evaluation form. Let us know what you thought

of the organization of this public consultation.

This will help us a lot in planning our future

events and other initiatives for the

stakeholders. And also this is the suggestion

form which will be open until April 14. This will

also be posted online, so via the IPOPHL

website and IPOPHL official Facebook page

 for those who were not able to attend

physically today. So, we'll let this slide stay for

the duration of the event and while we wait for

the serving of lunch. Thank you very much.

ATTY. ANN CLAIRE CABOCHAN : Can I just say something? Because you have

your evaluation form. This helps us improve

our services. I hope you will take it seriously.

Because we do take it up in ex-con. And we

have this here. And I would just like to share

that we will have our evaluators soon. And we

are hoping, based on the ISA, the Institute of

Solidarity in Asia, and the audit that we have

had excellent scores. We're hoping that we

have 5 out of 5 in all categories. We're hoping

that we eventually get certified as an island of

good governance. So this is your IPO feel

really walking the talk. We would like to be

cited as an island of good governance. And

certainly the conduct of public consultations is

one such activity that we take very seriously.

So with these survey forms, evaluation and

 your suggestion forms, be assured that we

take them seriously. Salamat po.

ATTY. JAVIER : So again, thank you for your presence today.

And again, we would like to get your honest

evaluation as well as your any further

suggestions aside from those that we have

heard earlier. And also, we will be distributing

your lunch for today. So you may take it home

or you may take it here. And again, may you

have a blessed Holy Week for everyone.