This case involves a petition filed by the Philippine Lawyers Association challenging a requirement imposed by the director of the Philippines Patent Office that patent attorneys pass an additional examination. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the work of patent attorneys primarily involves the application of law, which members of the Philippine Bar are already qualified to do after passing the Bar exam. The Philippine Patent Law does not expressly authorize the director to impose additional qualifications unlike the US Patent Law. Allowing such a requirement could set a precedent for other government bureau heads to impose their own qualifications for lawyers to practice.
This case involves a petition filed by the Philippine Lawyers Association challenging a requirement imposed by the director of the Philippines Patent Office that patent attorneys pass an additional examination. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the work of patent attorneys primarily involves the application of law, which members of the Philippine Bar are already qualified to do after passing the Bar exam. The Philippine Patent Law does not expressly authorize the director to impose additional qualifications unlike the US Patent Law. Allowing such a requirement could set a precedent for other government bureau heads to impose their own qualifications for lawyers to practice.
This case involves a petition filed by the Philippine Lawyers Association challenging a requirement imposed by the director of the Philippines Patent Office that patent attorneys pass an additional examination. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the work of patent attorneys primarily involves the application of law, which members of the Philippine Bar are already qualified to do after passing the Bar exam. The Philippine Patent Law does not expressly authorize the director to impose additional qualifications unlike the US Patent Law. Allowing such a requirement could set a precedent for other government bureau heads to impose their own qualifications for lawyers to practice.
Case title: Philippine Lawyers Association v Agrava
Facts: Petitioners in this case file for prohibition and injunction against respondent Agrava, director of the Philippines Patent Office for the imposition of a mandatory additional examination requirement to practice law in the Philippines Patent Office. 1. In 1957, Respondent Agrava issued a circular scheduling an examination for the purposes of qualifying as patent attorneys under the Philippines Patent Office. 2. Petitioner PLA questions this circular—argues that (1) anyone who has passed the Bar is licensed by the Supreme Court is already qualified to practice in the Philippines Patent Office; (2) therefore the examinations are contrary to law for being in excess of jurisdiction 3. Respondent Agrava maintains that (1) the work of patent attorneys do not only involve the application of the law, but also of technical and scientific knowledge so much so that prosecution of patent cases may be handled by engineers, (2) the Rules of Court do not prohibit him to impose an exam; (3) the exam is in accordance with the Patent Law of the Philippines1 Issue: Whether the examination imposed by Agrava is invalid Ruling: Petition granted. Ratio: Members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office because the work therein involves the interpretation, determination and application of the Patent Law and other laws related. SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF LAW. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. In general, it involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. THE WORK IN THE PATENTS OFFICE INVOLVES THE PRACTICE OF LAW. Most of the work, even if requiring application of scientific and technical knowledge and skill, must be rendered in accordance with Patent Law and other laws applicable. PHILIPPINE PATENT LAW IS SILENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR TO IMPOSE EXAMS. Unlike the US Patent Law which expressly authorizes their Director showing of qualifications through tests and exams, Ph Patent Law is silent on the point. To allow Agrava would mean to also allow other heads of other Bureaus to impose additional qualifications for lawyers to practice in their offices. Doctrine: (1) Scope of practice of law; (2) who may practice law; (3) exclusivity of requirements to practice of law
Topic: Introductory concepts, practice of law
Case: In re: Medado Facts: Medado in this case petitioned to sign in the Roll of Attorneys almost 30 years after passing the bar exams and commencing his private practice. 1. In 1979, Medado graduated UP College of Law and passed the bar exams of the same year with GWA of 82.7 2. In 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Ceremony and he signed in what he thought was the Roll of Attorneys but what was actually only an attendance record 3. Years later, Medado found his Notice to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys—believing that it wasn’t as urgent since he was already practicing, he set it aside 4. In 2005 during his mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE), he was asked for his Roll Number which he was not able to provide
1 Patterned from US Patent Law which prescribes a similar examination
5. In 2012, Medado filed the petition 6. The Office of the Bar Confidant states that the petition should be dismissed because of Medado’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and of the petition’s utter lack of merit. Issue: Should Medado be allowed to sign in the Roll? Ruling: Petition granted, on condition. Ratio: Medado can be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, but with a penalty akin to suspension, allowing him only to sign 1 year after the receipt of this resolution, with a fine of P32,000. TO PROHIBIT MEDADO FROM SIGNING WOULD ULTIMATELY BE DISBARMENT. MEDADO HAS SHOWN MENTAL FITNESS AND MORAL FIBER WHICH THE PROFESSION REQUIRES. (1) Medado showed good faith and good moral character in filing the petition to sign in the Roll. (2) Medado has not been subject to any complaint for disqualification, (3) Medado is a competent and able legal practitioner, as shown by his different positions and offices held. MEDADO COMMITTED MISTAKE OF LAW, NOT MISTAKE OF FACT. Mistake of fact negates wilful intent, malice or evil motive therefore it is a valid defense. Mistake of law, on the other hand, excuses no one. Since Medado found his Notice to Sign in the Roll, it can be said that he knew of his lacking requirement. MEDADO COMMITTED INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT. Although it cannot be pursued because no formal charge was filed against him. CANON 9 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. “A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” Transgression entails suspension. Medado cannot be suspended because he is not a fully-fledged lawyer yet. Doctrine: (1) Importance of signing in the Roll; (2) Canon 9 Topic: Introductory concepts, practice of law Case: Javellana v DILG Facts: An administrative case was filed against Attorney/City Councilor Javellana for engaging in the practice of law without securing authority from the Regional Director of DILG. 1. In 1989, City Engineer of Bago City, Negros Occidental Eresto Divinagracia filed an administrative case against Javellana for being in violation of DILG Circular, particularly No. 80- 38 2. DILG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 which requires authority from DILG Regional Director before practice of law 3. Javellana served as counsel for private plaintiffs in an Illegal Dismissal and Damages case directed against Divinagracia, a public official—a representative of the City Government of Bago 4. Memorandum Circular 90-81 and RA 7160 was enacted during the pendency of the case, which imposed restrictions on public officials’ practice of law 5. Javellana’s arguments are: (1) they violate the rule-making power of the SC as seen in Art. VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution; (2) they are class legislation, discriminatory against the legal and medical profession Issue: Whether the circulars, laws and relevant provisions are unconstitutional Ruling: Petition dismissed Ratio: The assailed circulars and laws are not in violation of the rule-making power of the SC because they only prescribe rules of conduct for public officials. Neither are they class legislation, because it applies to all provincial and municipal officials and employees. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES DECISIONS ARE GRANTED RESPECT. This is out of doctrine of separation of powers, and because of presumed knowledgability and expertise in enforcement of laws and regulations in their jurisdiction. A PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. All complaints against administrative officials are vested with public interest. By representing private complainants against Divinagracia, his practice represented interests adverse to the government. MERE RULES OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. The assailed circulars and laws are not in violation of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court because they merely prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflict of interest, not rules over actual practice of law. Doctrine: (1) Public office is a public trust; (2) Restrictions imposed by administrative authorities are accorded respect