P O W E R S A N D F U N C T I O N S O F ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES A.RULE-MAKING P O W E R PHILIPPINE PHILIPPINE LAWYER LAWYERS S VS AGRA AGRAVA VA
G. R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959 This is the petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer’s Association for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office.
Facts:
O n M a y 2 7 , 1 9 5 7 , r e s p o n d e n t A g r a v a issued a circular announcing that he had s c h e d u l e d f o r J u n e 2 7 , 1 9 5 7 a n e x a m i n a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f determining who are qualified to practice a s p a t e n t a t t o r n e y s b e f o r e t h e Ph il ip pi ne s Pa te nt Of fi ce , th e sa id examination to c o v e r p a t e n t l a w a n d ju ju r i s p ru ru d en en c e a n d t h e r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e b e f o r e s a i d o f f i c e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e ci rcul a r, m emb e rs o f th e Ph ilipp in e Ba r, e n g i n e e r s a n d o t h e r p e rs o n s wi t h sufficient scientific and technical training a r e q u a l i f i e d t o t a k e t h e s a i d ex am in at io n. It w ou l d a pp ea r th at heretofore, resp respon onden dentt Dire Direct ctor or has has been been ho holding similar examinations. P e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t a n y o n e h a s pass passed ed the the bar bar exam examss and and is lice licens nsed ed by the S uprem e Cou rt to pr actic e law, h a s g o o d s t a n d i n g , t h u s d u l y q u a l i f i e d t o p ra r a c t ic i c e b e fo f o r e th t h e P a te t e nt nt O f f i c e , a n d therefore the act of requiring members of t h e B a r i n g o o d s t a n d i n g t o t a k e a n d pass an examination given by the Patent O f f i c e a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o b e allowed to practice before said office is a c l e a r e x c e s s o f h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d violation of the law. O n t he he ot o t he he r h an an d, d, r es es po po nd n d en en t c l a i m e d t ha h a t h e i s e x p re r e ss s s ly l y a u t ho h o r i ze z e d b y t he he l a w t o r e q u i r e p e r s o n s d e s i r i n g t o p ra c ti c e o r to do b us in es s b e fo r e h im to s ub mi t an ex amin am in atio at io n, ev en if th ey ar e already members of the bar. He contends t h a t o u r P a t e n t L a w , R e p u b l i c A c t N o . 165, is patterned after the United States P a t e n t L a w ; a n d of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases prescribes an examination similar to that which he had prescribed and scheduled.(a) Attorney at law. — Any attorney at la law in good standing admitted to practice b e f o r e a n y U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o r t h e highest court of any State or Territory of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w h o f u l f i l l s
t h e
p r o v i s i o n s
o f
r eq ui re me nt s
a nd
c om pl ie d
t h e s e
m a y
b e
r u l e s
w it h
t he
admitt ed to pr acti ce
b e f o r e t h e P a t e n t Office and have have his his name name entered entered on the re register of attorneys.(c ) Requirement for registration. — No person will be admitted to practice and register
unless
he
shall
apply
to
the
Commiss i one r of Patent s i n
wri ti ng
on
a
p r e s c r i b e d
f o r m
s u p p l i e d
b y
t h e Commi ssi oner and f urni sh al l requ e sted i n f o r m a t i o n a n d m a t e r i a l ; a nd
s ha ll
estab lish
to
the
satisf actio n
of
the
C o mm m m i ss s s i on o n e r t h at a t he h e is i s of o f go g o o d m or or a l c h a r a c t e r a n d o f g o o d r e p u t e x x
x
In
o r de r
th at
th e
Co mm i s s i on e r
ma y
determine
w h e t h e r a p e r s o n x x x h a s t h e q ua ua l if if i ca ca ti ti o ns ns s pe pe c if if i ed ed , s at at i sf sf ac ac to to r y p r o o f o f g o o d m o r a l c h a r a c t e r a n d repute, x x x an examin a tion whi ch i s h e l d f r o m t i m e t o t i m e m u s t b e t a k e n and passed. The Respondent states thatthe promulgation of the Rules of Practice o f
the
United
States
Patent
O f f i c e i n Patent Cases is authorized authorize d by the United Sta State tess Pate Patent nt Law Law itse itself lf whic which h prov provid ides es:: The Commissioner
of
Patents,
S e c r e t a r y regulations
o f
governing
the
subject
to
t h e
Commerce recognition
a p p r o v a l
o f
p r e s c r ib e
rules
ma y
of a g e n t s ,
attorneys,
or
t h e an d other
p e r s o n s representing appl icants or other partie s befo beforre his his offic ffice, e, and may requi equire re of suchp e r s o n s ,
ag e nt s,
or
at to rn e ys ,
b ef or e
b e i ng ng
r e co co g n i ze ze d a s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a p p l i ca c a n t s o r o t he h e r p e r so s o n s , t h a t t he he y s h a l l
s h o w
t h e y
g o o d
a r e
r e p u t e ,
o f
a r e
g o o d
m o r a l
c h a r a c t e r
a n d
i n
poss ossess essed of the neces ecessa sary ry qual qualif ific ica atio tions to ena enable them them to ren render der to
applicants oro th th er er pe pe rs rs on on s v al al ua ua bl bl e s er er vi vi ce ce , a nd nd ar ar e l i k e w i s e t o c o m p e t e n t t o a d v i s e a n d assi st appl i cant s or ot he r persons in the p r e s e n t a t i o n o r prosecution
of
their
applic lications or other business before the Office ice. x x
x R e s p o n d e n t D i r e c t o r c o n c l u d e s t h a t Section 78 of Republic Act No. 165 being s i m i l a r t o
t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f l a w j u s t reproduced, then h e i s a ut ho ri ze d t o p r e s c r i b e the rule s a nd regu lat ion s r e q u i r i n g t h a t p e r s o n s d e s i r i n g t o practice before him should subm submit it to and and pass pass an exam examiinat nation. ion. We repr eproduc oducee sai said S e c t i o n 7 8 , R e p u b l i c A c t N o . 1 6 5 , f o r pur purpos poses of comp compar aris ison on :S E C . 7 8 . R u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . — T h e Director subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, shall promulgate the n e c e s s a r y r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , n o t i n c o ns ns i s t e nt nt w i t h l a w , f o r t h e c on on d uc uc t o f all business business in the Patent Office. Issue/s:
W H E T H E R O R N O T M E M B E R S O F T H E BAR S HOU LD F IRS T T AKE AND PAS S A N E X A M I N A T I O N G I V E N B Y T H E P A T E N T O FF ICE BE FO RE HE CO UL D BE AL LOW ED TO PRAC PRACTI TICE CE LAW LAW IS IS THE THE SAID SAID OFFIC OFFICE. E. whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation a n d t he he p ro ro se se c ut ut i o n o f p at at en en t a p p li li ca ca t i o n s , e t c . , c o n s t i t u t e o r i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e practice of law. W H E T H E R O R N O T D I R E C T O R O F THEP ATE NT OF F IC E IS AUT HOR IZ E D T O CONDUCT AN EXAM EX AMINA INATI TION ON FOR PATE PA TENT NTATT ATTORN ORNEYS EYS IS CONTRA CONTRARY RY TO TO LAW. LAW.
Decision:
The petition for prohibition is granted and t h e r e s p o n d e n t D i r e c t o r i s h e r e b y prohibited from requiring members of the P h i l i p p i n e B a r t o s u b m i t t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o r t e s t s a n d p a s s t h e s a m e b ef e f o re r e b ei ei n g p e r m i t t e d t o a p p e a r a n d prac practtice bef before ore the Pat Patent ent Office. ice. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in thePhilippines1 and to any member of t h e P h i l i p p i n e B a r i n g o o d s t a n d i n g m a y p r a c t i c e l a w a n yw yw h e r e a n d b e f o r e a n y entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in cou rt; it embr aces the pre par at ion of ple adi ngs and and oth other er pape papers rs inci incide dent nt to acti action onss and and social proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of c l i en en t s b e f or or e j u d g e s a n d c o u r t s , a n d i n a d d i t i o n , c o n v e y i n g . I n g e n e r a l , a l l advi advice ce to clie client nts, s, and and all all acti action on take taken n for for the m i n matt ers con nect ed wit h the law corporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement o f a c r e d i t o r ’ s c l a i m i n b a n k r u p t c y a n d insolvency proceedings, and conducting p r o c e e d i n g s i n a t t a c h m e n t , a n d i n matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice as do the preparation and d r a f t i n g o f l e g a l i n s t r u m e n t s , w h e r e t h e w o r k d o n e involves the determination by the trained legal legal mind mind of of the the legal legal effect effect of facts facts and c o n d i t i o n s . ( 5 A m . J u r . p . 2 6 2 , 2 6 3 ) . (Emphasis supplied).Prac Practic tice e of law law unde underr mode modern rn cond condit itio ions ns c o n s i s t s i n n o s m a l l p a r t o f w o r k performed outside of any court and h a v i n g n o i m m e d i a t e r e l a t i o n t o p ro ce e di ng s i n c ou rt . I t e mb ra ce s conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the p r e p a r a t i o n a n d e x e c u t i o n o f l e g a l i nstrume nt s cove r ing an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may h a v e n o d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h c o u r t p r oc oc e e di di ng ng s , t h e y a r e a l wa wa y s s u b j e c t t o b e c o m e i n v o l v e d i n l i t i g a t i o n . T h e y require in many aspects a high degree of l e g al a l s k i l l , a w i de d e e x p er e r i e n ce ce w i t h m e n a n d a f f a i r s , a n d g r e a t c a p a c i t y f o r a d ap t at i on t o d i ff i cu l t a n d c o mp l e x situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction distinction so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part which involves advice and d raf ti ng o f i n s t r u m e n t s i n h i s o f f i c e . I t i s o f i mportance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by p e r s o ns n s p os o s se s e s s ed e d o f a d e q u a t e l e a r n i n g a n d s k i l l , o f s o u n d moral c h a r a c t e r , a n d a c t i n g at a l l t i me s u n d e r t h e h e a v y t r u s t o b l i g a t i o n s t o cl ie nt s wh i ch r es t s up on al l at to rn ey s. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,Vol. 3 (1953 ed.), p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices (Mass.), 194 N.E.313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. vs. Automobile Service Assoc. (R. I. ) 179 A . 139, 144). (Emphasis ours). T h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w i n c l u d e s s u c h
appearance before the Patent Office, there presentation of applicants, oppositors, and other pe rsons, and t he prose cuti on o f t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r p a t e n t , t h e i r opp osi tio ns the ret o, or the enf orc emen t of their rights in patent cases. I n c o n c l u s i o n , w e h o l d t h a t u n d e r t h e p re re se se nt nt l aw aw , m e mb mb er er s o f t he he P hi hi li li pp pp in in e B a r a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s T r i b u n a l t o practi ce law, and i n good s t a n d i ng ng , m a y p r a c t i c e t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n b e f o r e t h e Patent Office, for the reason that much of th e bu si ne ss in sa id of fi ce in vo l ve s th e interpretation interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h facts involved; that part of the functions o f t h e P a t e n t d i r e c t o r a r e j u d i c i a l o r q u a s i jud j ud i ci al , so mu c h so t ha t ap pe al s from his orders and decisions are, under the la law, tak taken en to the Supreme Court
