[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-319982-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-319982-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","philippine-lawyers-association-vs-agrava-g-r-no-l-12426-petition-for-prohibition-and-injunction","PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. AGRAVA - G. R. No. L-12426 - petition for prohibition and injunction","","Petition by the Philippine Lawyer’s Association seeks prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, as Director of the Philippines Patent Office, challenging a circular that required a June 27, 1957 examination for those who wished to practice as patent attorneys. The petitioner argues that bar passers in good standing are already qualified and cannot be subjected to additional conditions. The respondent contends patent case prosecution requires scientific and technical training and is authorized under Republic Act No. 165.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/philippine-lawyers-association-vs-agrava-g-r-no-l-12426-petition-for-prohibition-and-injunction/319982/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/philippine-lawyers-association-vs-agrava-g-r-no-l-12426-petition-for-prohibition-and-injunction/319982.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Angel","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-09-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",16,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What action did the petitioner seek against Celedonio Agrava?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Philippine Lawyer’s Association filed a petition for prohibition and injunction to stop Agrava, as Director of the Patent Office, from enforcing the challenged examination requirement.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did the petitioner oppose the Patent Office examination requirement?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The petitioner argued that members of the Philippine Bar who passed the bar examinations and are in good standing are already qualified to practice before the Patent Office, so requiring them to take another examination violates the law.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did the respondent justify the examination and his authority?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The respondent maintained that patent prosecution involves scientific and technical knowledge, not purely legal practice, and that the Patent Law (Republic Act No. 165) authorizes the Director to prescribe examinations to determine who may practice before the Patent Office.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},319982,1790193128,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":102,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687207412472,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Republic of the Philippines  \nSUPREME COURT  \nManila  \nEN BANC  \nG. R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959 PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs.  \nCELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office, respondent.  \nArturo A. Alafriz for petitioner.  \nOffice of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for respondent.  \nMONTEMAYOR, J.:  \nThis is the petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer's Association for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office.  \nOn May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office, the said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice before said office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore, respondent Director has been holding similar examinations.  \nIt is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association 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 Office, and that consequently, the cat of the respondent Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before said office, such as representing applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.  \nIn his answer, respondent Director, through the Solicitor General, maintains that the prosecution of patent cases \"does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training, so much so that, as a matter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases may be handled not only by lawyers, but also engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training who pass the prescribed examinations as given by the Patent Office;   that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent Office, or any other quasi-judicial body from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent Office which, as stated in the preceding paragraph, requires more of an application of scientific and technical knowledge than the mere application of provisions of law;   that the action taken by the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law of the Philippines, which similar to the United States Patent Law, in accordance with which the United States Patent Office has also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed by respondent    \nRespondent further contends that just as the patent law of the United States of America authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe examinations to determine as to who  \npractice before the United States Patent Office, the respondent, is similarly authorized to do so by our Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165.  \nAlthough as already stated, the Director of Patents, in the past, would appear to have been holding tests or examinations the passing of which was imposed as a required qualification to practice before the Patent Office, to our knowledge, this is the first time that the right of the Director of Patents to do so, specially as regards members of the bar, has been questioned formally, or otherwise put in issue. And we have given it careful thought and consideration.  \nThe Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to adm","cbCaifl9OqOa295u","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifl9OqOa295u","pdf",114160,"English","# Case Overview\n## Petition and Challenge\n## Respondent’s Position\n## Issues Considered by the Court\n## Meaning of Practice of Law","[{\"question\":\"What action did the petitioner seek against Celedonio Agrava?\",\"answer\":\"The Philippine Lawyer’s Association filed a petition for prohibition and injunction to stop Agrava, as Director of the Patent Office, from enforcing the challenged examination requirement.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the petitioner oppose the Patent Office examination requirement?\",\"answer\":\"The petitioner argued that members of the Philippine Bar who passed the bar examinations and are in good standing are already qualified to practice before the Patent Office, so requiring them to take another examination violates the law.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the respondent justify the examination and his authority?\",\"answer\":\"The respondent maintained that patent prosecution involves scientific and technical knowledge, not purely legal practice, and that the Patent Law (Republic Act No. 165) authorizes the Director to prescribe examinations to determine who may practice before the Patent Office.\"}]","PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. AGRAVA - G. R. No. L-12426 - petition for prohibition and injunction | PDF",1789948431,15]