Case Title and Citation: Philippine Lawyers’ Association vs Agrava, 1959

FACTS:
The Philippine Lawyer's Association filed a petition for prohibition and injunction
against Celedonio Agrava, the Director of the Philippines Patent Office. The Director had
announced a scheduled examination to determine who is qualified to practice as patent
attorneys before the Patent Office. The examination was said to cover patent law,
jurisprudence, and the rules of practice before the office. Members of the Philippine Bar,
engineers, and others with sufficient scientific and technical training were deemed qualified
to take the examination.
The Philippine Lawyer's Association argued that a member of the Philippine Bar, who
has passed the bar examinations and is licensed to practice law in the Philippines, should be
considered duly qualified to practice before the Patent Office. They contended that requiring
members of the Philippine Bar to pass an examination given by the Patent Office was beyond
the Director's jurisdiction and violated the law.

ISSUE:
Whether members of the Philippine Bar, who are in good standing and licensed to
practice law in the Philippines, are qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office
without being required to pass an examination given by the Patent Office.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Philippine Lawyer's Association, granting
the petition for prohibition. The Court held that the practice of law includes appearance
before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and
the prosecution of their applications for patents, oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of
their rights in patent cases.
The Court emphasized that the transaction of business in the Patent Office involves
the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, but all such
business must be conducted in accordance with the Patent Law and other laws. Practice
before the Patent Office also entails the interpretation and application of laws, legal
principles, as well as the establishment of facts according to the law of evidence and
procedure.
While the Director of Patents may require practitioners to enlist the assistance of
technical experts in preparing documents, a member of the bar should be allowed to practice
before the Patent Office without further examination or qualification. The Court reasoned that
the Director of Patents exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and a lawyer's legal
knowledge and training are sufficient qualifications.
The Court found that the Philippine Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, does not
explicitly authorize the Director to require an examination for members of the bar already
authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law. Comparisons to the United States Patent
Law and its provisions on attorney registration and examination were deemed irrelevant in
this context.
In conclusion, the Court ruled that members of the Philippine Bar, in good standing
and authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, may practice their profession before the
Patent Office. The Director was prohibited from requiring members of the bar to submit to an
examination or test before being permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office.