The Cudahy Packing Co. v. Director of Patents
[GR 22647, July 30, 1971]

“Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippines Patent Office provides:
"19. Power of attorney or authorization. — Before any attorney-at-law or other recognized person will be allowed to take action in any case or proceeding, ex parte or inter partes, a written power of attorney or authorization must be filed in the particular case or proceeding. xxx xxx xxx"

“It should be noted that the action taken by petitioner's counsel and subsequently held null and void by the Director of Patents was merely to ask for an extension of time for filing a notice of opposition to private respondent's applications, on the ground that it would take some time to prepare the opposition papers in the United States and to have them properly authenticated by the Philippine Consul. The petition was on the face of it quite reasonable; and the Director of Patents so found it and ruled that it was "based on meritorious grounds." True it is that Rule 19 requires a written power of attorney or authorization to be filed "before any attorney-at law or other recognized person will be allowed to take action in any case or proceeding." But the fact is that in this case the Director of Patents did allow petitioner's counsel to file the petition for extension, and granted it by giving said counsel up to August 29, 1961 within which to submit the notice of opposition. And within the period granted the opposition was duly filed.”

“The requirement of Rule 19 is not jurisdictional in nature, especially in regard to a mere motion for extension such as that here in question. There is nothing so important or so decisive in such a motion, insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, as to render it valueless accompanied by a power-of-attorney or written authorization. Indeed it may happen that the extension is sought precisely because the requisite written authority of counsel to act in behalf of the client may not arrive on time. In such a case, to say that counsel cannot even file a motion for extension would pose a dilemma beyond solution.”

“In any event, whether or not failure to comply strictly with Rule 19 may, under certain circumstances, justify the Director of Patents in denying the extension prayed for, the fact is that in this case he granted the petition, and his action cannot be considered necessarily null and void because of such non-compliance nor on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This is especially so where, as in this case, the law firm, when it filed the petition for extension, was already armed with an authorization by cablegram received from the agents of its client, followed by a formal power of attorney executed by said client on August 7, 1961 and submitted to the Bureau of Patents on August 28, within the period of extension given for filing the notice of opposition. The suggestion that the cabled authorization was not sufficient for purposes of the requirement in Rule 19 because it did not come directly from petitioner gives greater importance to form than to substance and reads into the said rule a more restrictive meaning than its words justify. It does not provide that the authorization must be given by the party himself, that is, petitioner in this case.”