PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA Case Digest PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA G. R. No.

L-12426 February 16, 1959 FACTS: A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction aga inst Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Off ice. On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he h ad scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Off ice. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Offic e and that the respondent Director s holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The respondent, in rep ly, maintains the prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or purel y the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical k nowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, thi s is the first time that his right has been questioned formally. ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparatio n and the prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law. HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance b efore the Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the prac tice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application of oth er laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be establishe d in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is n ot limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the l aw provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and tr aining, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial bo dy, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is no t the case.