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.