Phil Lawyer’s Association vs Agrava 105 Phil 173 (1959), G.R. No. L-12426, February 16, 1959
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
On
may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June 27, 1957 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. It would appear
that heretofore, the respondent Director has been holding similar examinations.
It
is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association that 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, and that consequently, the
cat 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, such
as representing applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications
for patent, is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
ISSUE
Whether
or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent applications, constitutes or is included in the practice
of law?
RULING
YES.
The Supreme Court held that under the present law, members of the Philippine
Bar authorized by the Supreme Court 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.
In
this case, respondent Director is 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment