PLA, petitioner vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA et.al, defendant.

(no need to include all the parties)

G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.

TOPIC: Judicial Ethics

FACTS: (Here you put how the case started, what were the events that lead to the creation of the case.
You can include here the history from whence the case originated (e.g. RTC, MTCC) and what kind
of pleading/motion/petition was filed)
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.

a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Philippine Lawyer’s Association – Won) (“name of petitioner” – “won” who
won the case)
One who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the
Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent
Office
The circular of the respondent Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take
and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent to their being allowed to
practice before said office is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law
Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and injunction against respondent Director Agrava, in his
capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office in connection to the circular

b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Agrava - Lost) (“name of respondent – “lost” who lost the case)
Respondent maintains that the prosecution of patent cases "does not involve entirely or purely the practice
of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training, so much so
that, as a matter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases may be handled not only by
lawyers, but also engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training who
pass the prescribed examinations as given by the Patent Office
The Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent Office, or any other quasi-judicial body from requiring
further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent Office
 which, as stated in the preceding paragraph, requires more of an application of scientific and technical
knowledge than the mere application of provisions of law
The action taken by the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. 165, otherwise known as the
Patent Law of the Philippines, which similar to the United States Patent Law, in accordance with
which the United States Patent Office has also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed by
respondent

ISSUE: (issue related to the topic/subject; since a case may contain two or more issues that are not
relevant to our subject)
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.

FINDINGS OF THE Lower Court:

The petition for prohibition is granted.

FINDINGS OF THE Court of Appeals:

Affirmed RTC ruling.

RULING: (of the Supreme Court)

The petition for prohibition is granted.

Rule: (Principles given by the ponente are to be stated here such as the Applicable laws, statutes,
doctrince. BE SPECIFIC)
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.
Application: (How was the rule applied to the facts of the case?)
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

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:
(use word processor for uniformity)
Save file with the following format:
1(case number as assigned).docx