|
Standing by the motto “fidus et audax” (faith
and bravery), the firm has, in the course of its thirty-years of
intensely dedicated legal practice, espoused and fought for the
interests of its clients and the causes which it so firmly
believes in. As a result of its impassioned commitment, the firm
has contributed to the steady development of law by enriching
jurisprudence in the country.
The firm
takes pride in the recognition and respect it has gained in the
field of intellectual property. It has successfully prosecuted
and skillfully sought the protection of internationally well-known
trademarks such as “BENZAC” of Galderma Pharma S.A., “MEGA” and
“NESCAFE” owned by Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., “VALENTINO”
of Valentino Globe B.V., “SO-EN WORD & S&G LOGO” of So-en Garments
Corp., “MGM” of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Lion Corporation, “FLEXTEK2”
of Organon Teknika B.V., “SYGEN” of Fyfield Holland B.V., “JACK
DANIEL’S” and “JACK DANIEL’S OLD TIME NO. 7 BRAND QUALITY &
DESIGN” of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., “PAUL SMITH” of Paul
Smith Ltd., “ECCO” of Eccolet SKO A/ S, and “ESPRIT” of Esprit
International, before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO)
and/or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Moreover, the
firm has successfully handled the cases involving the trademarks
“MASTER”, “CRUNCH” and “GOLD” owned by Societe Des Produits Nestle
S.A. up to the Supreme Court. With respect to patent protection,
it has successfully defended Smithkline Beecham’s “CIMETIDINE”
patent in a cancellation case also before the IPO.
In the area of maritime law
and seamens’ rights, the firm has expertly handled maritime
disaster cases as well as illegal termination, injury, illness and
death claims on behalf of seafarers and their families. As a
consequence, their rights, privileges and benefits under the law
and contract have remained secured and protected. The firm has
also played an instrumental role in assisting families of those
who perished in the tragic sinking of several vessels in transit
namely the “MV Sea Pine” in October 1978 in Japan, the “MV
Antiparos” in January 1981 in South America, the “MV Elma Tres” in
November 1981 in Germany, and the “MT Maasguar” in March 1989 also
in Japan. The firm further assisted in facilitating the claims of
seamen who died or were injured during the sinking of the oil rig
“DB 29” in the South China Sea in August 1991.
In the field of aviation law,
the firm, in its maiden year of practice, took on the challenge of
handling the demands of several victims of the Air Manila plane
crash of 1976 in Guam and eventually succeeded in securing their
claims. In 2000, it assisted some relatives of the of the victims
of the Kenya Airlines 2000 plane crash in Kenya. At present, the
firm is assisting some of the families of the victims of the Air
Philippines Flight No. 541 crash in April 2000 in Samal Island.
In the area of general
litigation, the firm boasts of successfully defending causes
which were eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. In Ramon T.
Torres vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and Manila Yacht Club, (G.R.
No. 91934, May 27, 1991) the Supreme Court ruled that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not the trial court, has
jurisdiction over the controversy which involves an intracorporate
dispute. Another decision which became a guidepost in
procedural law was the case of Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. vs.
Honorable Reyes and American President Lines, Ltd. (G.R. No.
108229, August 24, 1993), whereby the Supreme Court sustained the
respondents’ use of depositions of foreign witnesses during the
course of the trial as a mode of discovery.
More recently, in Equatorial Realty
Development, Inc. vs. Sps. Desiderio & Edarlina Frogozo (G.R. No.
128563, March 25, 2004), the High Court sustained the trial
court’s cancellation of the notice of levy in the certificate of
title on the ground that the levy on the real property was in
excess of the sheriff’s authority to execute only goods and
chattels.
Finally, in Manly Sportwear Manufacturing, Inc.
vs. Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center (G.R. No.
165306, September 20, 2005), the High Court ruled that the power
of the trial court judge to issue search warrants is exclusive and
correspondingly carries the power to subsequently quash a warrant
already issued if upon re-evaluation of the evidence, the judge
finds that no probable cause exists. |
|
 |
