TOPIC 3 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

6. Application for Registration - Sec.3 on International Conventions and Reciprocity (refers to the Paris Convention or the
TRIPS Agreement)

SECTION 3. International Conventions and Reciprocity. - Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a real and
effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property
rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the
Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or
reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. (n)

Sec. 124-126, 128, 130, 131, 239.2

SECTION 124. Requirements of Application. –

124.1. The application for the registration of the mark shall be in Filipino or in English and shall contain the following:

(a) A request for registration;

(b) The name and address of the applicant;

(c) The name of a State of which the applicant is a national or where he has domicile; and the name of a State in which the
applicant has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment, if any;

(d) Where the applicant is a juridical entity, the law under which it is organized and existing;

(e) The appointment of an agent or representative, if the applicant is not domiciled in the Philippines;

(f) Where the applicant claims the priority of an earlier application, an indication of:

i) The name of the State with whose national office the earlier application was filed or if filed with an office other than a national
office, the name of that office,

ii) The date on which the earlier application was filed, and

iii) Where available, the application number of the earlier application;

(g) Where the applicant claims color as a distinctive feature of the mark, a statement to that effect as well as the name or names of
the color or colors claimed and an indication, in respect of each color, of the principal parts of the mark which are in that color;

(h) Where the mark is a three-dimensional mark, a statement to that effect;

(i) One or more reproductions of the mark, as prescribed in the Regulations;

(j) A transliteration or translation of the mark or of some parts of the mark, as prescribed in the Regulations;

(k) The names of the goods or services for which the registration is sought, grouped according to the classes of the Nice
Classification, together with the number of the class of the said Classification to which each group of goods or services belongs;
and

(l) A signature by, or other self-identification of, the applicant or his representative.

124.2. The applicant or the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark with evidence to that effect, as prescribed by
the Regulations within three (3) years from the filing date of the application. Otherwise, the application shall be refused or the mark
shall be removed from the Register by the Director.

124.3. One (1) application may relate to several goods and/or services, whether they belong to one (1) class or to several classes
of the Nice Classification.
124.4. If during the examination of the application, the Office finds factual basis to reasonably doubt the veracity of any indication or
element in the application, it may require the applicant to submit sufficient evidence to remove the doubt. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 166a)

SECTION 125. Representation; Address for Service. - If the applicant is not domiciled or has no real and effective commercial
establishment in the Philippines, he shall designate by a written document filed in the Office, the name and address of a Philippine
resident who may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark. Such notices or services may be served upon
the person so designated by leaving a copy thereof at the address specified in the last designation filed. If the person so
designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, such notice or process may be served upon the Director.
(Sec. 3, R.A. No. 166a)

SECTION 126. Disclaimers. - The Office may allow or require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of an
otherwise registrable mark but such disclaimer shall not prejudice or affect the applicant’s or owner’s rights then existing or
thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, nor such shall disclaimer prejudice or affect the applicant’s or owner’s right on another
application of later date if the disclaimed matter became distinctive of the applicant’s or owner’s goods, business or services. (Sec.
13, R.A. No. 166a)

SECTION 128. Single Registration for Goods and/or Services. - Where goods and/or services belonging to several classes of
the Nice Classification have been included in one (1) application, such an application shall result in one registration. (n)

SECTION 130. Signature and Other Means of Self-Identification. –

130.1. Where a signature is required, the Office shall accept:

(a) A hand-written signature; or

(b) The use of other forms of signature, such as a printed or stamped signature, or the use of a seal, instead of a hand-written
signature: Provided, That where a seal is used, it should be accompanied by an indication in letters of the name of the signatory.

130.2. The Office shall accept communications to it by telecopier, or by electronic means subject to the conditions or requirements
that will be prescribed by the Regulations. When communications are made by telefacsimile, the reproduction of the signature, or
the reproduction of the seal together with, where required, the indication in letters of the name of the natural person whose seal is
used, appears. The original communications must be received by the Office within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the
telefacsimile.

130.3. No attestation, notarization, authentication, legalization or other certification of any signature or other means of self-
identification referred to in the preceding paragraphs, will be required, except, where the signature concerns the surrender of a
registration. (n)

SECTION 131. Priority Right. –

131.1. An application for registration of a mark filed in the Philippines by a person referred to in Section 3, and who previously duly
filed an application for registration of the same mark in one of those countries, shall be considered as filed as of the day the
application was first filed in the foreign country.

131.2. No registration of a mark in the Philippines by a person described in this section shall be granted until such mark has been
registered in the country of origin of the applicant.

131.3. Nothing in this section shall entitle the owner of a registration granted under this section to sue for acts committed prior to
the date on which his mark was registered in this country: Provided, That, notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner of a well-known
mark as defined in Section 123.1(e) of this Act, that is not registered in the Philippines, may, against an identical or confusingly
similar mark, oppose its registration, or petition the cancellation of its registration or sue for unfair competition, without prejudice to
availing himself of other remedies provided for under the law.

131.4. In like manner and subject to the same conditions and requirements, the right provided in this section may be based upon a
subsequent regularly filed application in the same foreign country: Provided, That any foreign application filed prior to such
subsequent application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of, without having been laid open to public
inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and has not served, nor thereafter shall serve, as a basis for claiming a right
of priority. (Sec. 37, R.A. No. 166a)

239.2. Marks registered under Republic Act No. 166 shall remain in force but shall be deemed to have been granted under this
Act and shall be due for renewal within the period provided for under this Act and, upon renewal, shall be reclassified in accordance
with the International Classification. Trade names and marks registered in the Supplemental Register under Republic Act No. 166
shall remain in force but shall no longer be subject to renewal.

7. Assignment of Application Number and Filing Date (Section 127 and 132 )

SECTION 127. Filing Date. –

127.1. Requirements. - The filing date of an application shall be the date on which the Office received the following indications and
elements in English or Filipino:

(a) An express or implicit indication that the registration of a mark is sought;

(b) The identity of the applicant;

(c) Indications sufficient to contact the applicant or his representative, if any;

(d) A reproduction of the mark whose registration is sought; and

(e) The list of the goods or services for which the registration is sought.

127.2. No filing date shall be accorded until the required fee is paid. (n)

SECTION 132. Application Number and Filing Date.

- 132.1. The Office shall examine whether the application satisfies the requirements for the grant of a filing date as provided in
Section 127 and Regulations relating thereto. If the application does not satisfy the filing requirements, the Office shall notify the
applicant who shall within a period fixed by the Regulations complete or correct the application as required, otherwise, the
application shall be considered withdrawn.

132.2 Once an application meets the filing requirements of Section 127, it shall be numbered in the sequential order, and the
applicant shall be informed of the application number and the filing date of the application will be deemed to have been abandoned.
(n)

8. Examination - Section 133, 126, 129

SECTION 126. Disclaimers. - The Office may allow or require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of an
otherwise registrable mark but such disclaimer shall not prejudice or affect the applicant’s or owner’s rights then existing or
thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, nor such shall disclaimer prejudice or affect the applicant’s or owner’s right on another
application of later date if the disclaimed matter became distinctive of the applicant’s or owner’s goods, business or services. (Sec.
13, R.A. No. 166a)

SECTION 129. Division of Application. - Any application referring to several goods or services, hereafter referred to as the “initial
application,” may be divided by the applicant into two (2) or more applications, hereafter referred to as the “divisional applications,”
by distributing among the latter the goods or services referred to in the initial application. The divisional applications shall preserve
the filing date of the initial application or the benefit of the right of priority. (n)

SECTION 133. Examination and Publication. –

133.1. Once the application meets the filing requirements of Section 127, the Office shall examine whether the application meets
the requirements of Section 124 and the mark as defined in Section 121 is registrable under Section 123.

133.2. Where the Office finds that the conditions referred to in Subsection 133.1 are fulfilled, it shall, upon payment of the
prescribed fee, forthwith cause the application, as filed, to be published in the prescribed manner.

133.3. If after the examination, the applicant is not entitled to registration for any reason, the Office shall advise the applicant
thereof and the reasons therefor. The applicant shall have a period of four (4) months in which to reply or amend his application,
which shall then be re-examined. The Regulations shall determine the procedure for the re-examination or revival of an application
as well as the appeal to the Director of Trademarks from any final action by the Examiner.

133.4. An abandoned application may be revived as a pending application within three (3) months from the date of abandonment,
upon good cause shown and the payment of the required fee.

133.5. The final decision of refusal of the Director of Trademarks shall be appealable to the Director General in accordance with the
procedure fixed by the Regulations. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 166a)

9. Publication Section 133

SECTION 133. Examination and Publication. –

133.1. Once the application meets the filing requirements of Section 127, the Office shall examine whether the application meets
the requirements of Section 124 and the mark as defined in Section 121 is registrable under Section 123.

133.2. Where the Office finds that the conditions referred to in Subsection 133.1 are fulfilled, it shall, upon payment of the
prescribed fee, forthwith cause the application, as filed, to be published in the prescribed manner.

133.3. If after the examination, the applicant is not entitled to registration for any reason, the Office shall advise the applicant
thereof and the reasons therefor. The applicant shall have a period of four (4) months in which to reply or amend his application,
which shall then be re-examined. The Regulations shall determine the procedure for the re-examination or revival of an application
as well as the appeal to the Director of Trademarks from any final action by the Examiner.

133.4. An abandoned application may be revived as a pending application within three (3) months from the date of abandonment,
upon good cause shown and the payment of the required fee.

133.5. The final decision of refusal of the Director of Trademarks shall be appealable to the Director General in accordance with the
procedure fixed by the Regulations. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 166a)

10. Opposition Sections 134, 135

SECTION 134. Opposition. - Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark may, upon
payment of the required fee and within thirty (30) days after the publication referred to in Subsection 133.2, file with the Office an
opposition to the application. Such opposition shall be in writing and verified by the oppositor or by any person on his behalf who
knows the facts, and shall specify the grounds on which it is based and include a statement of the facts relied upon. Copies of
certificates of registration of marks registered in other countries or other supporting documents mentioned in the opposition shall be
filed therewith, together with the translation in English, if not in the English language. For good cause shown and upon payment of
the required surcharge, the time for filing an opposition may be extended by the Director of Legal Affairs, who shall notify the
applicant of such extension. The Regulations shall fix the maximum period of time within which to file the opposition. (Sec. 8, R.A.
No. 165a)

SECTION 135. Notice and Hearing. - Upon the filing of an opposition, the Office shall serve notice of the filing on the applicant,
and of the date of the hearing thereof upon the applicant and the oppositor and all other persons having any right, title or interest in
the mark covered by the application, as appear of record in the Office. (Sec. 31, R.A. No. 165)

1. Bata Industries v. CA, G.R. No. L-53672, May 31, 1982

G.R. No. L-53672 May 31, 1982

BATA INDUSTRIES, LTD., petitioner, 

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; TIBURCIO S. EVALLE, DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, NEW OLYMPIAN RUBBER
PRODUCTS CO., INC., respondents.

RESOLUTION

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

On October 27, 1980, the petition in this case was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner moved to reconsider and as required, private
respondent submitted comments. A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was held on June 7, 1982. This is Our resolution on
the motion for reconsideration. 

In Inter Partes Case No. 654 of the Philippine Patent Office, New Olympian Rubber Products Co., Inc. sought the registration of the
mark BATA for casual rubber shoes. It alleged that it has used the mark since July 1, 1970. 

Registration was opposed by Bata Industries, Ltd., a Canadian corporation, which alleged that it owns and has not abandoned the
trademark BATA. 

Stipulated by the parties were the following: 

1. Bata Industries, Ltd. has no license to do business in the Philippines; 

2. It is not presently selling footwear under the trademark BATA in the Philippines; and 

3. It has no licensing agreement with any local entity or firm to sell its products in the Philippines. 

Evidence received by the Philippine Patent Office showed that Bata shoes made by Gerbec and Hrdina of Czechoslovakia were
sold in the Philippines prior to World War II. Some shoes made by Bata of Canada were perhaps also sold in the Philippines until
1948. However, the trademark BATA was never registered in the Philippines by any foreign entity. Under the circumstances, it was
concluded that "opposer has, to all intents and purposes, technically abandoned its trademark BATA in the Philippines." 

Upon the other hand, the Philippine Patent Office found that New Olympian Rubber Products Co., Inc.: 

... has overwhelmingly and convincingly established its right to the trademark BATA and consequently, its use and registration in its
favor. There is no gainsaying the truth that the respondent has spent a considerable amount of money and effort in popularizing the
trademark BATA for shoes in the Philippines through the advertising media since it was lawfully used in commerce on July 1, 1970.
It can not be denied, therefore, that it is the respondent-applicant's expense that created the enormous goodwill of the trademark
BATA in the Philippines and not the opposer as claimed in its opposition to the registration of the BATA mark by the respondent. 

Additionally, on evidence of record, having also secured (three) copyright registrations for the word BATA, respondent-applicant's
right to claim ownership of the trademark BATA in the Philippines, which it claims to be a Tagalog word which literally means "a
little child" (Exh. 5), is all the more fortified. 

The Philippine Patent Office dismissed the opposition and ordered the registration of the trademark BATA in favor of the domestic
corporation. 
Appeal from the decision of the Philippine Patent Office was made to the Court of Appeals by Bata Industries, Ltd. In a decision
penned by Justice Justiniano P. Cortez dated August 9, 1979, with Justices Mariano Serrano and Jose B. Jimenez concurring, the
PPO decision was reversed. A motion for reconsideration filed by New Olympian Rubber Products Co., Inc. was denied on October
17, 1979, by the same justices. 

However, in a resolution on a second motion for reconsideration penned by Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez who is now a member of this
Court, to which Justices Corazon J. Agrava and Rodolfo A. Nocon concurred (with the former filing a separate opinion), the
decision of August 9, 1979, was set aside and that of the Director of Patents was affirmed. 

In addition to points of law, Bata Industries, Ltd. questions "the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the questioned
resolutions of the respondent Court of Appeals." In effect, it insinuates that there was something wrong when a new set of justices
rendered a completely different decision. 

It should be stated that there is nothing wrong and unusual when a decision is reconsidered. This is so when the reconsideration is
made by a division composed of the same justices who rendered the decision but much more so when the reconsideration is made
by a different set of justices as happened in this case. Obviously, the new set of justices would have a fresh perspective
unencumbered by the views expressed in the decision sought to be reconsidered. Nor should it be a cause for wonder why
Justices Gutierrez, Agrava and Nocon had replaced the original justices. Justice Cortez resigned to become a candidate for the
governorship of Cagayan (he was elected), while Justices Serrano and Jimenez retired upon reaching the age of 65. 

On the merits, the extended resolution penned by Justice Gutierrez does not have to be fortified by Us. We agree with Mr. Justice
Gutierrez when he says: 

We are satisfied from the evidence that any slight goodwill generated by the Czechoslovakian product during the Commonwealth
years was completely abandoned and lost in the more than 35 years that have passed since the liberation of Manila from the
Japanese troops. 

The applicant-appellee has reproduced excerpts from the testimonies of the opposer-appellant's witnesses to prove that the
opposer-appellant was never a user of the trademark BATA either before or after the war, that the appellant is not the successor-in-
interest of Gerbec and Hrdina who were not is representatives or agents, and could not have passed any rights to the appellant,
that there was no privity of interest between the Czechoslovakian owner and the Canadian appellant and that the Czechoslovakian
trademark has been abandoned in Czechoslovakia. 

We agree with the applicant-appellee that more than substantial evidence supports the findings and conclusions of the Director of
Patents. The appellant has no Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the registration of the mark in the appellee's favor. We
agree with the decision of the Director of Patents which sustains, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, the right of the
appellee to the registration and protection of its industrial property, the BATA trademark. 

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit. No special pronouncement as to costs. 

SO ORDERED. 

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur. 

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave. 

////

Facts: 
The respondent New Olympian Rubber Products sought to register the mark "BATA" for casual rubber shoe products, alleging it
had used the said mark since the 1970s. The petitioner, a Canadian corporation opposed with its allegations that it owns and has
not abandoned said trademark. The petitioner has no license to do business in the Philippines and the trademark has never been
registered in the Philippines by any foreign entity. Bata Industries does not sell footwear under the said trademark in the Philippines
nor does it have any licensing agreement with any local entity to sell its product.

Evidence show that earlier, even before the World War II, Bata shoes made by Gerbec and Hrdina (Czech company) were already
sold in the country. Some shoes made by the petitioner may have been sold in the Philippines ntil 1948. On the other hand,
respondent spent money and effort to popularize the trademark "BATA" since the 70's. Moreover, it also secures 3 copyright
registrations for the word "BATA". The Philippine Patent Office (PPO) dismissed the opposition by the petitioner while the Court of
Appeals (CA) reversed said decision. However, a 2nd resolution by the CA affirmed the PPO decision.

Issue: Does the petitioner have the right to protect its goodwill alleged to be threatened with the registration of the mark?

NO. Bata Industries has no Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the registration of the mark.
Any slight goodwill obtained by the product before World War II was completely abandoned and lost in the more than 35 years that
passed since Manila's liberation from Japan. The petitioner never used the trademark either before or after the war. It is also not
the successor-in-interest of Gerbec & Hrdina and there there was no privity of interest between them, Furthermore, the Czech
trademark has long been abandoned in Czechoslovakia.
 2. Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCR 516 (1999)

11. Issuance and Publication of Certificate (Section 136-139, 144)

SECTION 136. Issuance and Publication of Certificate. - When the period for filing the opposition has expired, or when the
Director of Legal Affairs shall have denied the opposition, the Office upon payment of the required fee, shall issue the certificate of
registration. Upon issuance of a certificate of registration, notice thereof making reference to the publication of the application shall
be published in the IPO Gazette. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 165)

SECTION 137. Registration of Mark and Issuance of a Certificate to the Owner or his Assignee. –

137.1. The Office shall maintain a Register in which shall be registered marks, numbered in the order of their registration, and all
transactions in respect of each mark, required to be recorded by virtue of this law.

137.2. The registration of a mark shall include a reproduction of the mark and shall mention: its number; the name and address of
the registered owner and, if the registered owner’s address is outside the country, his address for service within the country; the
dates of application and registration; if priority is claimed, an indication of this fact, and the number, date and country of the
application, basis of the priority claims; the list of goods or services in respect of which registration has been granted, with the
indication of the corresponding class or classes; and such other data as the Regulations may prescribe from time to time.

137.3. A certificate of registration of a mark may be issued to the assignee of the applicant: Provided, That the assignment is
recorded in the Office. In case of a change of ownership, the Office shall at the written request signed by the owner, or his
representative, or by the new owner, or his representative and upon a proper showing and the payment of the prescribed fee, issue
to such assignee a new certificate of registration of the said mark in the name of such assignee, and for the unexpired part of the
original period.

137.4. The Office shall record any change of address, or address for service, which shall be notified to it by the registered owner.

137.5. In the absence of any provision to the contrary in this Act, communications to be made to the registered owner by virtue of
this Act shall be sent to him at his last recorded address and, at the same, at his last recorded address for service. (Sec. 19, R.A.
No. 166a)

SECTION 138. Certificates of Registration. - A certificate of registration of a mark shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of
the registration, the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the same in connection with the
goods or services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate. (Sec. 20, R.A. No. 165)

SECTION 139. Publication of Registered Marks; Inspection of Register. –

139.1. The Office shall publish, in the form and within the period fixed by the Regulations, the marks registered, in the order of their
registration, reproducing all the particulars referred to in Subsection 137.2.

139.2. Marks registered at the Office may be inspected free of charge and any person may obtain copies thereof at his own
expense. This provision shall also be applicable to transactions recorded in respect of any registered mark. (n)

SECTION 144. Classification of Goods and Services. –

144.1. Each registration, and any publication of the Office which concerns an application or registration effected by the Office shall
indicate the goods or services by their names, grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification, and each group shall be
preceded by the number of the class of that Classification to which that group of goods or services belongs, presented in the order
of the classes of the said Classification.
Duration of Certificate (Sec. 145)

SECTION 145. Duration. - A certificate of registration shall remain in force for ten (10) years: Provided, That the registrant shall file
a declaration of actual use and evidence to that effect, or shall show valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use,
as prescribed by the Regulations, within one (1) year from the fifth anniversary of the date of the registration of the mark.
Otherwise, the mark shall be removed from the Register by the Office. (Sec. 12, R.A. No. 166a)

12. Cancellation, Corrections and Renewal

Voluntary Cancellation (Sec. 140)

SECTION 140. Cancellation upon Application by Registrant; Amendment or Disclaimer of Registration. - Upon
application of the registrant, the Office may permit any registration to be surrendered for cancellation, and upon cancellation the
appropriate entry shall be made in the records of the Office. Upon application of the registrant and payment of the
prescribed fee, the Office for good cause may permit any registration to be amended or to be disclaimed in part: Provided,
That the amendment or disclaimer does not alter materially the character of the mark. Appropriate entry shall be
made in the records of the Office upon the certificate of registration or, if said certificate is lost or destroyed, upon a certified
copy thereof. (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 166)

Correction of Mistakes (Sec. 142, 143)

SECTION 142. Correction of Mistakes Made by the Office. - Whenever a material mistake in a registration incurred through the
fault of the Office is clearly disclosed by the records of the Office, a certificate stating the fact and nature of such mistake shall be
issued without charge, recorded and a printed copy thereof shall be attached to each printed copy of the registration. Such
corrected registration shall thereafter have the same effect as the original certificate; or in the discretion of the Director of the
Administrative, Financial and Human Resource Development Service Bureau a new certificate of registration may be issued
without charge. All certificates of correction heretofore issued in accordance with the Regulations and the registration to which they
are attached shall have the same force and effect as if such certificates and their issuance had been authorized by this Act. (n)

SECTION 143. Correction of Mistakes Made by Applicant. - Whenever a mistake is made in a registration and such mistake
occurred in good faith through the fault of the applicant, the Office may issue a certificate upon the payment of the prescribed fee:
Provided, That the correction does not involve any change in the registration that requires republication of the mark. (n)

Renewal (Sec. 146)

SECTION 146. Renewal. –

146.1. A certificate of registration may be renewed for periods of ten (10) years at its expiration upon payment of the prescribed fee
and upon filing of a request. The request shall contain the following indications:

(a) An indication that renewal is sought;

(b) The name and address of the registrant or his successor-in-interest, hereafter referred to as the “right holder”;

(c) The registration number of the registration concerned;

(d) The filing date of the application which resulted in the registration concerned to be renewed;

(e) Where the right holder has a representative, the name and address of that representative;

(f) The names of the recorded goods or services for which the renewal is requested or the names of the recorded goods or services
for which the renewal is not requested, grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification to which that group of goods or
services belongs and presented in the order of the classes of the said Classification; and

(g) A signature by the right holder or his representative.

146.2. Such request shall be in Filipino or English and may be made at any time within six (6) months before the expiration of the
period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or it may be made within six (6) months after such expiration on payment
of the additional fee herein prescribed.

146.3. If the Office refuses to renew the registration, it shall notify the registrant of his refusal and the reasons therefor.

146.4. An applicant for renewal not domiciled in the Philippines shall be subject to and comply with the requirements of this Act.
(Sec. 15, R.A. No. 166a)