HEIRS OF CRISANTA Y. GABRIEL-ALMORADIE, herein represented b the spe!i"# "d$inistr"t%r LOREN&O B.

ALMORADIE %' the Intest"te Est"te %' the L"te Cris"nt" Y. G"brie#-A#$%r"die "nd LOREN&O B. ALMORADIE, petiti%ners, (s. CO)RT OF A**EALS "nd EMILIA M. S)MERA, herein s+ed in her !"p"!it "s spe!i"# "d$inistr"tri, %' the Test"te Est"te %' the #"te DR. -OSE R. *ERE&, resp%ndents. FACTS: Petitioners Claim: Perez filed a complaint for Unfair Competition with Injunction and Dama es! dated Au ust "! #$%#! doc&eted as Ci'il Case (o) *+**! a ainst ,a-riel) In the said complaint! Perez alle ed that ,a-riel! without just cause and in 'iolation of the terms of the distri-utorship a reement! stopped sellin and distri-utin ./0(D12. soap! and instead on 0cto-er 3! #$%4 ,a-riel tried to re ister the trademar& ./0(D12. in her name) 2espondents Claim: 0n 0cto-er #$! #$%*! ,a-riel! in Inter Partes Case (o) *"4! filed a Petition to Cancel Certificate of 2e istration (o) S253"$ co'erin the trademar& ./0(D12. for -eaut6 soap in the name of Dr) Perez) ,a-riel claims that the e7clusi'e ownership of the trademar& ./0(D12. is 'ested in her -6 'irtue of her a reement with Perez) Petitioner now comes to us ar uin that our decision in the case of ,a-riel ') Perez! supra! has -ecome functus officio on account of the prior re istration of the trademar& ./0(D12. -6 ,o 8a6 and its su-se9uent assi nment to petitioner:s predecessors; and that the Cancellation (o) #+3! dated (o'em-er #%! #$"+ in'ol'in pri'ate respondent:s trademar& rendered the Ci'il Case (o) C5"#+< moot and academic) ISSU1S: /hether decision in the case of ,a-riel ') Perez! supra! has -ecome functus officio 81=D: In the interest of the pu-lic and for the e7peditious administration of justice the issue on infrin ement shall -e resol'ed -6 the court considerin that this case has dra ed on for 6ears and has one from one forum to another) It is a rule of procedure for the Supreme Court to stri'e to settle the entire contro'ers6 in a sin le proceedin lea'in no root or -ranch to -ear the seeds of future liti ation) (o useful purpose will -e ser'ed if the case or the determination of an issue in a case is remanded to the trial court onl6 to ha'e its decision raised a ain to the Court of Appeals and from there to the Supreme Court) /e laid down the rule that the remand of the case or of an issue to the lower court for further reception of e'idence is not necessar6 where the Court is in position to resol'e the dispute -ased on the records -efore it and particularl6 where the ends of justice would not -e su-ser'ed -6 the remand thereof) >oreo'er! the Supreme Court is clothed with ample authorit6 to re'iew matters! e'en thou h those not raised on appeal if it finds that their consideration is necessar6 in arri'in at a just disposition of the case