Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Respondent Director Agrava issued a circular announcing the need for an examination for the purpose of
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office
The said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice before said office.
According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient
scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination.
(Here you put how the case started, what were the events that lead to the creation of the case.)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the circular by the respondent Director Agrava from requiring members of the Philippine
Bar to submit to an examination or test to pass the same before being permitted to appear before the
Patent Office is valid.
RULING:
The petition for prohibition is granted.
Rule:
The Court held that only the Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to the
admission and the practice of law in the Philippines. Naturally, the appearance of lawyers before the
Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes practice
of law which only the Supreme Court can regulate and not the Director of Philippines Patent Office
Under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in
good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the
business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of
the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts
involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that
appeals from his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.
(Principles given by the ponente are to be included here. Applicable laws, statutes, how theyre applied.)
Application:
In this case, if we were to allow the Patent Office, in the absence of an express and clear provision of law
giving the necessary sanction, to require lawyers to submit to and pass on examination prescribed by
it before they are allowed to practice before said Patent Office, then there would be no reason why
other bureaus specially the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Customs, where the business in the same
area are more or less complicated
(How do you apply the rule in the case at bar? How was the rule applied in the case?)
Conclusion:
Thus, the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to
submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice
before the Patent Office.
Notes:
Deadline July 30, 2017 (12 noon)
Save file with the following format:
1(case number as per new list of cases)_General Principles(topic)_Cuadrasal(leader).docx
See filename for example without the notes.