In our forty years of dedication to law and the legal profession, we have in our own way, contributed to the intricate legal landscape by enriching jurisprudence in the country.

In the are of trademark, we secured a favorable decision for Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. (Nestle) in the case of Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112012, April 4, 2001) wherein the Supreme Court ruled that "FLAVOR MASTER" used for the coffee is confusingly similar to Nestle's "MASTER ROAST" and "MASTER BLEND" trademarks also applied for coffee. The High Court likewise sided with Nestle in the case of Societe Des Produits, S.A. v. Martin Dy, Jr. (G.R. No. 172276, August 8, 2010) when it held that the "NANNY" mark for adult milk is confusingly similar to "NAN" trademark use for infant powdered milk. We were also able to prove that our clients "SHARK AND LOGO" trademark use for chaep sandals is distinct from and not confusingly similar to "GREG NORMAN LOGO" used for expensive clothing apparel in the case of Great White Shark Enterprises, Inc. v. Danilo Caralde (G.R. No. 192294, November 21, 2012). As to the subject of copyright, the High Court, is Manly Sportwear manufacturing, Inc. v. Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center (G.R. No. 16530, September 20, 2005), as agreed with us when it observed that the copyright registration issued by the National Library serves merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work but does not confer to right or title upon registered copyright owner.

Insofar as seafearer's right are concerned, our client-seaferer's claim for permanent and total disability benefits was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Rodel A. Cruz (G.R. No. 204769, July 1, 2016) because the company-designated doctor failed to issue a definite assessment of the seaferer'e injury within 240 days.
In the field of general practice and litigation, we are proud to have successfully defended legitimate causes of clients on various concerns. In Ramon T. Torres v. Court of Appeals and Manila Yacht Club (G.R. No. 91934, May 27, 1991), our position that the Securities and Exchange Commission and not the Trial Court, had jurisdiction over an intra-corporate dispute, was upheld by the High Court. In Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v. Honorable Reyes and American President Lines (G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993), The Supreme Court sustained our client's use of depositions of foreign witnesses during the course of trial as a mode of discovery. In Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Sps. Desiderio & Edarlina Frogoza (G.R. No. 128563, March 25, 2004), the Supreme Court also conformed with our claim that the trial court is correct in cancelling the notice of levy in the 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 Filinvest Alabang, Inc. v. Century Iron Works, Inc. (G.R. No. 213229, December 9, 2015), the High Court agreed with our client-contractor's view that while the construction contract between the parties partake of a "fixed lump sum" nature, it did not stop them from agreeing on additional works or changes to the project, provided the change is authorized in writing by the owner and the additional price to be paid to the contractor has been determined in writing by the parties in accordancewith Article 1724 of the Civil Code.

Translate »