American Tobacco v Director of Patents (1975) Antonio, J. FACTS: Under RA No.

. 166 the Director of Patents is vested with jurisdiction over cases involving the determination of the question of priority of adoption and use of a trade-mark, trade name or service-mark, and cancellation of registration of a trade-mark or trade name pending at the Patent Office. A similar provision is found in the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases. The Director of Patents issued the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in Trademark cases, Rule 168 of which is being assailed by petitioner in the case at bar. The assailed provision authorizes the Director to designate any ranking official to hear inter partes proceedings. The Rule reads: o Such inter partes proceedings in the Philippine Patent Office under this Title shall be heard before the Director of Patents, any hearing officer, or any ranking official of the office designated by the Director, but all judgments determining the merits of the case shall be personally and directly prepared by the Director and signed by him. The Director delegated the hearing of petitioners cases to several hearing officers. Petitioner alleged that such is illegal and void because the Director must personally hear and decide inter partes cases.

ISSUES + RULING: WoN the amended Rule is valid. YES. 3 of RA 165 empowers the Director to obtain the assistance of technical, scientific or other qualified officers or employees of other departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including corporations owned, controlled or operated by the Government, when deemed necessary in the consideration of any matter submitted to the Office relative to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. 78 of the same also empowers the Director to promulgate necessary rules and regulations. Under these provisions, the amendment to the Rules issued by the Director is clearly within the ambit of the law. To support the contention of the petitioner is to take a narrow reading of the provisions of the law. The legal principle is that unless there is an express provision of the law or by implication, a power is withheld from the administrative agency, it may issue necessary rules and orders to carry out its purpose. On a practical note, the Director cannot be expected to attend to all cases personally and perform his other duties. Delegation ensures reduction in delays and elimination of needless work in top levels. o Subdelegation of power has been justified by sound principles of organization which demand that those at the top be able to concentrate their attention upon the larger and more important questions of policy and practice, and their time be freed, so far as possible, from the consideration of the smaller and far less important matters of detail. Moreover, due process does not raking the actual taking of testimony to be made before the same officer who will decide the case. It is sufficient that a party is afforded the right to present his case. DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed.