PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION VS.

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

FACTS:

Celedonio Agrava, as the Director of the Philippines Patent Office issued a circular to
determine who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent
Office. Agrava contends that certain examination is required to be taken for those who want to
represent applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patents and that
lawyers are not exempted from taking this exam. According to him, Republic Act No. 165 allows
them to set conditions and examinations for those who wish to handle cases before the Patent
Office. He further argued that that the prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or
purely the practice of law and that there are cases that may be handled not only by lawyers,
but also other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training who pass the prescribed
examination. The petitioner argued one who has passed the bar examinations and is in good
standing is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines is therefore,
qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office

ISSUE: Whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

RULING:

YES. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the
representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent
cases.

The Supreme Court ruled that 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. 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.