The IPO and the Ombudsman

Even at the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), supposedly a graft-free agency handling local inventions, there are corrupt officers.

A 94-year-old man stands to lose a trademark he has developed for his bleaching liquid since 1952 because a hearing officer appears to favor his callous relatives.

His relatives allegedly took advantage of his trust, stole his trademark and registered it for themselves at the IPO.

When the complainant discovered the deception, he filed a case against the officers in the IPO, which assigned a hearing officer to settle the dispute.

At the preliminary conference, the hearing officer refused to accept as evidence 11 documentary exhibits from the old man.

In short, the hearing officer wiped out almost half of the complainant’s evidence. This is something most unusual because technical rules of evidence are binding in cases heard by the IPO.

When the old man learned that the exclusion of his evidence had absolutely no basis according to the rules of the IPO, he called the attention of the hearing officer who, however, ignored his protestations.

Undaunted, the complainant sued the hearing officer in the Office of the Ombudsman where the case has been pending since March last year.

If the Ombudsman would just investigate the case in earnest, it would find that the hearing officer is very fond of expensive clothes, shoes and jewelry, and that unscrupulous lawyers seek her “help” in their cases.

*  *  *

But if we are to gauge the Office of the Ombudsman based on its handling of the case against the Navy officers and enlisted men in the death of Ensign Philip Pestaño, then the old man’s case is a lost cause.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales didn’t conduct an exhaustive probe of the complaint against the Navy men before damning them so how do you expect her to investigate the allegations against the IPO hearing officer?

Like the IPO hearing officer, Ombudsman Morales didn’t admit the evidence presented by the Navy men to prove that they didn’t conspire to kill Pestaño and that the young Navy officer killed himself.

The Navy men presented as evidence findings of the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police’s Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), Manila police and private forensic expert Dr. Raquel Fortun.

The NBI, CIDG, Manila police and Fortun said Pestaño’s death was a suicide. Now, what did Pestaño’s relatives submit as evidence to the Ombudsman in accusing the Navy men of murder?

*  *  *

The Navy men are detained at the Marine headquarters in Fort Bonifacio while awaiting their trial for murder.

The wrongful accusation against them and their incarceration have demoralized the officers’ corps and rank and file of the Philippine Navy.

The Navy, as a whole, knows that the accused officers and men are innocent but can’t do anything because the case is out of its jurisdiction.

Navy records showed that Pestaño slashed his wrist and was confined at the Southern Command hospital in Zamboanga City a week or two before he shot himself aboard the BRP Bacolod City on Sept. 27, 1995.