Atty. Mai Ugay

17/06/2026

Every case, every consultation
has a STORY
has a DREAM
behind it.

11/06/2026

03/06/2026

The has ruled that similarities in trademark or logo designs that may confuse purchasers prevent the registration of later marks, even if new words are added.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division granted Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC’s (Starwood) consolidated petitions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) rulings allowing the registration of Oceanic Empire Limited’s (Oceanic) marks.

Oceanic filed to register the trademarks “𝐖 𝐆𝐋𝐎𝐁𝐀𝐋𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑” and “𝐖 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐔𝐄” and had earlier secured registration for “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑.”

Starwood, owner of several registered "𝐖” trademarks for hotels and entertainment services, opposed the applications and sought the cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑,” arguing that Oceanic’s marks were confusingly similar to its trademarks.

Starwood argued that Oceanic would benefit from the popularity and reputation of its brand and that this would mislead the public into believing that Oceanic’s business was connected with Starwood.

Ruling in favor of Starwood, the SC explained that trademark protection prevents confusion of goods and businesses, and that only the likelihood, not actual proof, of confusion is required. Each case must be assessed based on the resemblance of the marks and the relatedness of the services.

Under the 𝗗𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁, emphasis is placed on the dominant or most striking features of the marks rather than on minor differences.

In this case, the SC ruled that "𝐖" is the dominant feature of both Starwood’s and Oceanic’s marks. While Starwood’s "𝐖" is registered as a word mark, the Court clarified that Starwood cannot claim the letter "𝐖," but only its distinct stylized version.

The Court stressed that purchasers would immediately notice the similarity between the parties’ "𝐖" marks. It held that minor textual differences do not change the fact that both use the same style, which looks visually similar.

The SC thus directed the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks to deny Oceanic’s application for registration of trademark, and to grant Starwood’s petition for cancellation of the “𝐖 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑” mark.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166975.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164983.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

29/05/2026

"Hindi lahat ng force majeure
ay bagyo."

Kuya Kiko, with due respect, I disagree with your legal premise.

In law, a fortuitous event covers both Acts of God and Acts of Man beyond human control. In fact, our jurisprudence has long recognized that force majeure is not limited to earthquakes, typhoons, and floods.

Wars. Rebellions. Invasions. Government actions. Armed conflicts.

These are classic examples of force majeure arising from Acts of Man.

So when we say force majeure, hindi lang ito natural disasters. Hindi ito exclusive sa “Acts of God.”

The real legal question is not whether the event is man-made or natural.

The real question is:

Is there already an existing event that is unforeseeable or unavoidable enough to make compliance impossible?

But to say that force majeure refers only to Acts of God is legally inaccurate.

Hindi lahat ng force majeure ay bagyo.

Minsan, tao rin ang bagyo.

24/04/2026

⚖ ♥️
Focus on creating value...
Focus on service.

P. S. And do not forget to have fun. 😍

20/04/2026

Feeling dizzy?

17/04/2026

⚖ Ready to serve you!

05/03/2026

❤️

The (SC) has reiterated that corporate directors and officers are solidarily liable with the manning agency for the payment of disability benefits to seafarers under Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Special First Division granted the motion for partial reconsideration of its earlier Decision, which had held that only Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay) and Princess Cruises Ltd. (Princess Cruises) are liable for the disability benefits of its seafarer. The SC ruled that Magsaysay Fleet Director Sorwin Joy G. Rivera (Rivera) is also solidarily liable, meaning he can be made to pay the full amount due.

Magsaysay, a manning agency, hired Ruthgar T. Parce as an electrical fitter for its foreign principal, Princess Cruises. After he was injured while working on board, he was sent back to Manila, where the company-designated doctor diagnosed him with rotator tendinitis in his shoulder and recommended physical therapy.

Months later, Parce was told he had reached the maximum medical treatment and that his sickness allowance would be discontinued. Based on this, Princess Cruises found him fit to work.

Parce continued to feel pain, so he sought a second medical opinion. The doctor he consulted found him unfit for sea duty. Parce then requested Magsaysay for a referral to a third doctor, as required under the rules, and for copies of his medical records. Magsaysay refused and asked instead for a copy of the second doctor’s report to explore a possible settlement. Parce then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses.

The LA ruled in his favor, ordering Magsaysay and Princess Cruises to pay Parce USD 60,000 in disability benefits. The LA considered the company-designated doctor’s report incomplete because it failed to clearly state that Parce was fit to work. The National Labor Relations Commission upheld the LA and also stated that Rivera was liable alongside Magsaysay and Princess Cruises.

The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, noting that Parce did not immediately question his medical assessment, which weakened his case.

The SC disagreed. It held Magsaysay and Princess Cruises liable because the company-designated doctor’s report was incomplete, giving Parce nothing to properly contest. The SC affirmed the LA’s ruling that he was already deemed permanently disabled under the law.

Parce filed a motion for partial reconsideration, asking the SC to also declare Rivera solidarily liable with the companies. The SC granted the motion.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, clearly provides that when a recruitment agency is a corporation or partnership, its officers, directors, or partners are liable with the company for any money claims awarded to overseas Filipino workers.

The SC explained that while corporate officers are generally not personally liable for contracts entered into by their company, an exception applies when a law specifically makes them accountable. In this case, Rivera, a corporate officer of Magsaysay, was held solidarily liable with the company for Parce’s permanent disability benefits. Rivera was named in the complaint as “Owner/President/Manager” and had signed the employment contract on behalf of the company.

The SC added that when Magsaysay applied for its license to operate as a manning agency, its officers and directors were required, under Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Rules, to submit a verified undertaking, making them solidarily liable for claims arising from the employer-employee relationship.

The SC emphasized that Section 10 of RA 8042 and the relevant POEA Rules are considered part of every seafarer’s employment contract. “These provisions are in line with the State’s policy of affording protection to labor and alleviating the workers’ plight and are meant to assure overseas Filipino workers immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them,” the SC said.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161450

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161442

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution