SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.174379,August31,2016

E.I.DUPONTDENEMOURSANDCO.(ASSIGNEEOFINVENTORSCARINI,DUNCIAAND
WONG),Petitioner,v.DIRECTOREMMAC.FRANCISCO(INHERCAPACITYASDIRECTORGENERALOFTHE
INTELLECTUALPROPERTYOFFICE),DIRECTOREPIFANIOM.EVASCO(INHISCAPACITYASTHEDHUECTOROFTHE
BUREAUOFPATENTS),ANDTHERAPHARMA,INC.,Respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN,J.:

Apatentisgrantedtoproviderightsandprotectiontotheinventorafteraninventionisdisclosedtothepublic.Italsoseeksto
restrain and prevent unauthorized persons from unjustly profiting from a protected invention. However, ideas not covered by a
patent are free for the public to use and exploit. Thus, there are procedural rules on the application and grant of patents
establishedtoprotectagainstanyinfringement.Tobalancethepublicinterestsinvolved,failuretocomplywithstrictprocedural
ruleswillresultinthefailuretoobtainapatent.

ThisresolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1assailingtheCourtofAppealsAmendedDecision2datedAugust30,2006,which
deniedtherevivalofPhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526,andtheCourtofAppealsResolution3datedJanuary31,2006,which
grantedtheinterventionofTherapharma,Inc.intherevivalproceedings.

E.I.DupontNemoursandCompany(E.I.DupontNemours)isanAmericancorporationorganizedunderthelawsoftheStateof
Delaware.4ItistheassigneeofinventorsDavidJohnCarini,JohnJonasVytautasDuncia,andPancrasChorBunWong,allcitizens
oftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.5 chanrobleslaw

OnJuly10,1987,E.I.DupontNemoursfiledPhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526beforetheBureauofPatents,Trademarks,
andTechnologyTransfer.6TheapplicationwasforAngiotensinIIReceptorBlockingImidazole(losartan),aninventionrelatedto
the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure.7The product was produced and marketed by Merck, Sharpe, and
DohmeCorporation(Merck),E.I.DupontNemours'licensee,underthebrandnamesCozaarandHyzaar.8 chanrobleslaw

ThepatentapplicationwashandledbyAtty.NicanorD.Mapili(Atty.Mapili),alocalresidentagentwhohandledamajorityofE.I.
DupontNemours'patentapplicationsinthePhilippinesfrom1972to1996.9 chanrobleslaw

OnDecember19,2000,E.I.DupontNemours'newcounsel,Ortega,DelCastillo,Bacorro,Odulio,Calma,andCarbonell,10sent
theIntellectualPropertyOffice11aletterrequestingthatanofficeactionbeissuedonPhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526.12 chanrobleslaw

In response, Patent Examiner Precila O. Bulihan of the Intellectual Property Office sent an office action marked Paper No. 2 on
January30,2002,13whichstated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The appointed attorney on record was the late Atty. Nicanor D. Mapili. The reconstituted documents provided no
documentsthatwillshowthattheauthoritytoprosecutetheinstantapplicationisnowtransferredtothepresent
counsel.Noofficialrevocationonrecordisavailable.

Therefore,anofficialrevocationofthePowerofAttorneyoftheformercounselandtheappointmentofthepresent
bytheapplicantisthereforerequiredbeforefurtheractioncanbeundertaken.

1. Contrarytowhatwasalleged,theChemicalExaminingDivision's(CED)recordwillshowthatasfarasthe
saiddivisionisconcerned,itdidnotfailtoissuetheproperandtimelyactionontheinstantapplication.CED
recordshowsthatthesubjectapplicationwasassignedtotheexamineronJune7,1988.Amonthafterthat
wasJuly19,1988,thefirstOfficeActionwasmailedbutwasdeclaredabandonedasofSeptember20,1988
forapplicant'sfailuretorespondwithintheperiodasprescribedunderRule112.Sincethen,nootherofficial
transactionswererecorded.ThisrecordiscomplementedbytheExaminerincharge'sownrecord....

....

2. Itwasnotedthatittookthirteen(13)longyearsfortheapplicanttorequestforsuchOfficeAction.Thisis
notexpectedoftheapplicantsinceitisanacceptablefactthatalmostallinventors/applicantswishforthe
earlydispositionfortheirapplications.14

On May 29, 2002, E.I. Dupont Nemours replied to the office action by submitting a Power of Attorney executed by Miriam
Meconnahey,authorizingOrtega,Castillo,DelCastillo,Bacorro,Odulio,Calma,andCarbonelltoprosecuteandhandleitspatent
applications.15Onthesameday,italsofiledaPetitionforRevivalwithCostofPhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526.16 chanrobleslaw

In its Petition for Revival, E.I. Dupont Nemours argued that its former counsel, Atty. Mapili, did not inform it about the
abandonment of the application, and it was not aware that Atty. Mapili had already died.17It argued that it discovered Atty.
Mapili'sdeathwhenitsseniorlevelpatentattorneyvisitedthePhilippinesin1996.18Itarguedthatitonlyhadactualnoticeofthe
abandonmentonJanuary30,2002,thedateofPaperNo.2.19Thus,itarguedthatitsPetitionforRevivalwasproperlyfiledunder
Section 113 of the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippines Patent Office in Patent Cases (1962 Revised Rules of
Practice).20 chanrobleslaw

On April 18, 2002, the Director of Patents denied the Petition for Revival for having been filed out of time.21 The
Resolution22stated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Proprietydictatesthatthewellsettledruleonagencyshouldbeappliedtothiscasetomaintaintheobjectivityand
discipline of the Office. Therefore, for cases such as the instant case, let the Office maintain its position that
mistakesofthecounselbindtheclient,'regardlessofthedegreeofnegligencecommittedbytheformercounsel.
Although it appears that the former counsel, Arty. Nicanor Mapili was remiss in his obligations as counsel for the
applicants, the Office cannot revive the abandoned application because of the limitations provided in Rule 115.
Clearly,thePetitionforRevivalwasfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiod.Sincethelawandrulesdonotgivethe
DirectorofPatentsthediscretiontostretchtheperiodforrevival,theOfficeisconstrainedtoapplyRule115tothe
instantcase.

Inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,applicants'petitiontorevivethesubjectapplicationisherebydenied.

SOORDERED.23 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

E.I.DupontNemoursappealedthedenialtotheDirectorGeneraloftheIntellectualPropertyOfficeonAugust26,2002.24Inthe
Decision25 dated October 22, 2003, DirectorGeneral Emma C. Francisco denied the appeal and affirmed the Resolution of the
cralawred

DirectorofPatents.

On November 21, 2003, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review seeking to set aside the Intellectual
PropertyOffice'sDecisiondatedOctober22,2003.26 chanrobleslaw

On August 31, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted the Petition for Review.27In allowing the Petition for Revival, the Court of
Appealsstated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Afteranexhaustiveexaminationoftherecordsofthiscase,thisCourtbelievesthatthereissufficientjustification
torelaxtheapplicationoftheaboveciteddoctrineinthiscase,andtoaffordpetitionersomerelieffromthegross
negligencecommittedbyitsformerlawyer,Atty.NicanorD.Mapili[.]28 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Office, moved for reconsideration of this Decision on
September22,2004.29 chanrobleslaw

Intheinterim,Therapharma,Inc.movedforleavetointerveneandadmittheAttachedMotionforReconsiderationdatedOctober
11,200430and argued that the Court of Appeals' August 31, 2004 Decision directly affects its "vested" rights to sell its own
product.31 chanrobleslaw

Therapharma,Inc.allegedthatonJanuary4,2003,itfiledbeforetheBureauofFoodandDrugsitsownapplicationforalosartan
product"Lifezar,"amedicationforhypertension,whichtheBureaugranted.32Itarguedthatitmadeasearchofexistingpatent
applications for similar products before its application, and that no existing patent registration was found since E.I. Dupont
Nemours'applicationforitslosartanproductwasconsideredabandonedbytheBureauofPatents,Trademarks,andTechnology
Transfer.33Itallegedthatsometimein2003to2004,therewasanexchangeofcorrespondencebetweenTherapharma,Inc.and
Merck. In this exchange, Merck informed Therapharma, Inc. that it was pursuing a patent on the losartan products in the
Philippinesandthatitwouldpursueanylegalactionnecessarytoprotectitsproduct.34 chanrobleslaw

OnJanuary31,2006,theCourtofAppealsissuedtheResolution35grantingtheMotionforLeavetoIntervene.Accordingtothe
Court of Appeals, Therapharma, Inc. had an interest in the revival of E.I. Dupont Nemours' patent application since it was the
localcompetitorforthelosartanproduct.36ItstatedthatevenifthePetitionforReviewwaspremisedontherevivalofthepatent
application,Therapharma,Inc.'sinterventionwasnotprematuresinceE.I.DupontNemours,throughMerck,alreadythreatened
Therapharma,Inc.withlegalactionifitcontinuedtomarketitslosartanproduct.37 chanrobleslaw

E.I. Dupont Nemours moved for reconsideration on February 22, 2006, assailing the Court of Appeals' January 31, 2006
Resolution.38 chanrobleslaw

On August 30, 2006, the Court of Appeals resolved both Motions for Reconsideration and rendered the Amended
Decision39reversingitsAugust31,2004Decision.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the public interest would be prejudiced by the revival of E.I. Dupont Nemours' application.40It
foundthatlosartanwasusedtotreathypertension,"achronicailmentafflictinganestimated12.6millionFilipinos,"41andnoted
that the presence of competition lowered the price for losartan products.42 It also found that the revival of the application
prejudiced Therapharma, Inc.'s interest, in that it had already invested more than P20,000,000.00 to develop its own losartan
productandthatitactedingoodfaithwhenitmarketeditsproduct.43 chanrobleslaw

TheCourtofAppealslikewisefoundthatiterroneouslybaseditsAugust31,2004DecisiononE.IDupontNemours'allegationthat
ittookseven(7)to13yearsfortheIntellectualPropertyOfficetoactonapatentapplication.44Itstatedthatwhileitmighthave
taken that long to issue the patent, it did not take that long for the Intellectual Property Office to act on
application.45CitingSchuartz v. Court of Appeals,46it found that both E.I. Dupont Nemours and Arty. Mapili were inexcusably
negligentinprosecutingthepatentapplication.47 chanrobleslaw

On October 19, 2006, petitioner E.I. Dupont Nemours filed before this Court this Petition for Review on Certiorari.48 Both
respondents Intellectual Property Office and Therapharma, Inc. were directed to comment on the comment on the
Petition.49Upon submission of their respective Comments,50petitioner was directed to file its Consolidated Reply.51Thereafter,
thepartiesweredirectedtofiletheirrespectivememoranda.52 chanrobleslaw

TheargumentsofthepartiespresentseveralissuesforthisCourt'sresolution,asfollows:

First, whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari complied with Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court when petitioner
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

failedtoattachcertaindocumentstosupporttheallegationsinthecomplaint

Second,whetherpetitionershouldhavefiledapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt

Third,whetherthePetitionforReviewonCertiorariraisesquestionsoffact

Fourth,whethertheCourtofAppealserredinallowingtheinterventionofrespondentTherapharma,Inc.inpetitioner'sappeal

Fifth,whethertheCourtofAppealserredindenyingpetitioner'sappealfortherevivalofitspatentapplicationonthegroundsthat
(a) petitioner committed inexcusable negligence in the prosecution of its patent application and (b) thirdparty rights and the
publicinterestwouldbeprejudicedbytheappeal

Sixth,whetherSchuartzappliestothiscaseinthatthenegligenceofapatentapplicant'scounselbindstheapplicantand cralawlawlibrary

Lastly,whethertheinventionhasalreadybecomepartofpublicdomain.

I

The question of whether the Court of Appeals may resolve a motion for intervention is a question that assails an interlocutory
orderandrequestsareviewofalowercourt'sexerciseofdiscretion.Generally,apetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRules
ofCourtwilllietoraisethisissueinalimitedmanner.Theremustbeaclearshowingofgraveabuseofdiscretionforthewritof
certioraritobeissued.

However, when the Court of Appeals has already resolved the question of intervention and the merits of the case, an appeal
throughapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtistheproperremedy.

Respondent Therapharma, Inc. argues that the Petition should be dismissed outright for being the wrong mode of appeal.53 It
arguesthatpetitionershouldhavefiledapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65sincepetitionerwasassailinganactdonebythe
Court of Appeals in the exercise of its discretion.54It argues that petitions under Rule 45 are limited to questions of law, and
petitionerraisedfindingsoffactthathavealreadybeenaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.55 chanrobleslaw

Petitioner,ontheotherhand,arguesthatRule65isonlyavailablewhenthereisnoappealoranyplain,speedyremedyinthe
ordinarycourseoflaw.SinceapetitionforreviewunderRule45wasstillavailabletoit,itarguesthatitcorrectlyavaileditselfof
thisremedy.56PetitioneralsoarguesthatthereareexceptionstothegeneralruleontheconclusivenessoftheCourtofAppeals'
findingsoffact.57ItarguesthatitwasnecessaryforittodiscussrelevantfactsinorderforittoshowthattheCourtofAppeals
madeamisapprehensionoffacts.58 chanrobleslaw

ThespecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65isintendedtocorrecterrorsofjurisdiction.59Courtslosecompetenceinrelation
toanorderifitactsingraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.60ApetitionforreviewunderRule45,
ontheotherhand,isamodeofappealintendedtocorrecterrorsofjudgment.61Errorsofjudgmentareerrorscommittedbya
court within its jurisdiction.62This includes a review of the conclusions of law63of the lower court and, in appropriate cases,
evaluationoftheadmissibility,weight,andinferencefromtheevidencepresented.

Interventionresultsinaninterlocutoryorderancillarytoaprincipalaction.64Itsgrantordenialissubjecttothesounddiscretion
ofthecourt.65Interlocutoryorders,orordersthatdonotmakeafinaldispositionofthemeritsofthemaincontroversyorcause
of action,66 are generally not reviewable.67The only exception is a limited one, in that when there is no plain, speedy, and
adequateremedy,andwhereitcanbeshownthatthecourtactedwithout,inexcess,orwithsuchgraveabuseofdiscretionthat
suchactionoustsitofjurisdiction.

Judicialeconomy,orthegoaltohavecasesprosecutedwiththeleastcosttotheparties,68requiresthatunnecessaryorfrivolous
reviewsofordersbythetrialcourt,whichfacilitatetheresolutionofthemainmeritsofthecase,bereviewedtogetherwiththe
mainmeritsofthecase.Afterall,itwouldbemoreefficientforanappellatecourttoreviewacaseinitsentirecontextwhenthe
caseisfinallydisposed.

The question of whether intervention is proper is a question of law. Settled is the distinction between a question of law and a
questionoffact.Aquestionoffactariseswhenthereisdoubtastothetruthorfalsityofcertainfacts.69Aquestionoflaw,onthe
otherhand,ariseswhen"theappealraisesdoubtastotheapplicablelawonacertainsetoffacts."70Thetestoftenusedbythis
Courttodeterminewhetherthereisaquestionoffactoraquestionoflaw"isnottheappellationgiventosuchquestionbythe
partyraisingthesamerather,itiswhethertheappellatecourtcandeterminetheissueraisedwithoutreviewingorevaluating
theevidence,inwhichcase,itisaquestionoflawotherwiseitisaquestionoffact."71 chanrobleslaw

PetitionerraisesthequestionofwhetherRepublicActNo.165allowstheCourtofAppealstograntamotionforintervention.This
necessarilyrequiresadeterminationofwhetherRule19oftheRulesofCourt72appliesinappealsofcasesfiledunderRepublic
Act No. 165. The determination of this question does not require a review of reevaluation of the evidence. It requires a
determinationoftheapplicablelaw.

 II

If a petition fails to attach material portions of the record, it may still be given due course if it falls under certain exceptions.
AlthoughRule45,Section4oftheRulesofCourtrequiresthatthepetition"beaccompaniedby...suchmaterialportionsofthe
recordaswouldsupportthepetition,"thefailuretodosowillnotnecessarilywarranttheoutrightdismissalofthecomplaint.73 chanrobleslaw

Respondent Therapharma, Inc. argues that the Petition should have been outright dismissed since it failed to attach certain
documentstosupportitsfactualallegationsandlegalarguments,particularly:theannexesofthePetitionforReviewithadfiled
beforetheCourtofAppealsandtheannexesintheMotionforLeavetoInterveneithadfiled.74Itarguesthatpetitioner'sfailure
toattachthedocumentsviolatesRule45,Section4,whichrequiresthesubmissionofmaterialportionsoftherecord.75 chanrobleslaw

On the other hand, petitioner argues that it was able to attach the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 31, 2004, the
ResolutiondatedJanuary31,2006,andtheAmendedDecisiondatedAugust30,2006,allofwhichweresufficientforthisCourt
togiveduecoursetoitsPetition.76 chanrobleslaw

InMagsinov.DeOcampo,77thisCourtappliedtheproceduralguidepostsinGalvezv.CourtofAppeals78indeterminingwhether
theCourtofAppealscorrectlydismissedapetitionforreviewunderRule42forfailuretoattachrelevantportionsoftherecord.
Thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

InGalvezv.CourtofAppeals,acasethatinvolvedthedismissalofapetitionforcertioraritoassailanunfavorable
ruling brought about by the failure to attach copies of all pleadings submitted and other material portions of the
record in the trial court (like the complaint, answer and position paper) as would support the allegations of the
petition, the Court recognized three guideposts for the CA to consider in determining whether or not the rules of
proceduresshouldberelaxed,asfollows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only
those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the
documentinquestionwillsupportthematerialallegationsinthepetition,whethersaiddocumentwill
makeoutaprimafaciecaseofgraveabuseofdiscretionastoconvincethecourttogiveduecourse
tothepetition.

Second,evenifadocumentisrelevantandpertinenttothepetition,itneednotbeappendedifitis
shown that the contents thereof can also [sic] found in another document already attached to the
petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned
judgment,itwillsufficethatonlyacertifiedtruecopyofthejudgmentisattached.

Third,apetitionlackinganessentialpleadingorpartofthecaserecordmaystillbegivenduecourse
or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents
required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the
merits.79 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

AlthoughMagsinoreferred to a petition for review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals, the procedural guideposts cited
inMagsinomayapplytothiscasesincethecontentsofapleadingunderRule4280aresubstantiallythesameasthecontentsofa
pleading under Rule 45,81 in that both procedural rules require the submission of "material portions of the record as would
supporttheallegationsofthepetition."82 chanrobleslaw

InsupportofitsPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,petitionerattachedtheCourtofAppealsDecisiondatedAugust31,2004,83the
ResolutiondatedJanuary31,2006,84andtheAmendedDecisiondatedAugust30,2006.85TheCourtofAppealsResolutionand
AmendedDecisionquotedextensiveportionsofitsrolloinsupportofitsrulings.86Theseconclusionsweresufficienttoconvince
thisCourtnottooutrightdismissthePetitionbuttorequirerespondentstofirstcommentonthePetition,insatisfactionofthe
firstandsecondproceduralguidepostsinMagsino.

UponfilingofitsConsolidatedReply,87petitionerwasabletoattachthefollowingadditionaldocuments:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(1) PetitionforReviewfiledbeforetheCourtofAppeals88

(2) LettersdatedJuly18,1995,December12,1995,andDecember29,199589

(3) DeclarationofMs.MiriamMeconnaheydatedJune25,200290

(4) Spreadsheetofpetitioner'spatentapplicationshandledbyAtty.Mapili91

(5) Power of Attorney and Appointment of Resident Agent dated September 26,
199692

(6) Letter dated December 19, 2000 requesting an Office Action on Patent
ApplicationNo.3552693
 (7) PaperNo.2datedJanuary30,200294

(8) PetitionforRevivaldatedJanuary30,2002withattachedPowerofAttorneyand
AppointmentofResidentAgent95

(9) ResolutiondatedJuly24,2002byDirectoroftheBureauofPatents96and

(10) Notice of and Memorandum on Appeal before the DirectorGeneral of the

IntellectualPropertyOffice.97

ThethirdproceduralguidepostinMagsinowascompliedwithuponthesubmissionofthesedocuments.Petitioner,therefore,has
substantiallycompliedwithRule45,Section4oftheRulesofCourt.

III

Appealisnotarightbutamereprivilegegrantedbystatute.98Itmayonlybeexercisedinaccordancewiththelawthatgrantsit.

Accordingly,theCourt of Appeals is not bound by the rules of procedure in administrativeagencies.Theproceduralrulesofan
administrativeagencyonlygovernproceedingswithintheagency.OncetheCourtofAppealshasgivenduecoursetoanappeal
fromarulingofanadministrativeagency,theproceedingsbeforeitaregovernedbytheRulesofCourt.

However,petitionerarguesthatinterventionshouldnothavebeenallowedonappeal99sincetherevivalofapatentapplicationis
ex parte and is "strictly a contest between the examiner and the applicant"100under Sections 78101 and 79102 of the 1962
RevisedRulesofPractice.103Itarguesthatthedisallowanceofanyinterventionistoensuretheconfidentialityoftheproceedings
underSections13and14ofthe1962RevisedRulesofPractice.104 chanrobleslaw

Respondents argue that the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice is only applicable before the Intellectual Property Office.105 In
particular, respondent Therapharma, Inc. argues that the issue before the Court of Appeals was beyond the realm of patent
examination proceedings since it did not involve the patentability of petitioner's invention.106 It further argues that its
intervention did not violate the confidentiality of the patent application proceedings since petitioner was not required to divulge
confidentialinformationregardingitspatentapplication.107 chanrobleslaw

In the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice, final decisions of the Director of Patents are appealed to this Court and governed by
RepublicActNo.165.Inparticular: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

PARTX
PETITIONANDAPPEALS

....

CHAPTERIV

APPEALSTOTHESUPREMECOURTFROMFINALORDERSORDECISIONSOFTHEDIRECTOROFPATENTSINEX
PARTEANDINTERPARTESPROCEEDINGS

265.AppealstotheSupremeCourtinexparteandinterpartesproceedings.Anypersonwhoisdissatisfiedwith
the final decision of the Director of Patents, (affirming that of a Principal Examiner) denying him a patent for an
invention,industrialdesignorutilitymodelanypersonwhoisdissatisfiedwithanyfinaldecisionoftheDirectorof
Patents (affirming that of the Executive Examiner) in any proceeding and any party who is dissatisfied with any
final decision of the Director of Patents in an inter partes proceeding, may appeal such final decision to the
SupremeCourtwithinthirtydaysfromthedatehereceivesacopyofsuchdecision.(RepublicActNo.165,section
16,asamendedbysection3,RepublicActNo.864.)

266.ProcedureonappealtotheSupremeCourt.FortheprocedureonappealtotheSupremeCourt,fromthefinal
decisionsoftheDirectorofPatents,seesections63to73,inclusive,ofRepublicActNo.165(patentlaw).

ParticularlyinstructiveisSection73ofRepublicActNo.165,whichprovides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Section73.RulesofCourtapplicable.Inallothermattersnothereinprovided,theapplicableprovisionsofthe
RulesofCourtshallgovern.

RepublicActNo.165hassincebeenamendedbyRepublicActNo.8293,otherwiseknownastheIntellectualPropertyCodeofthe
Philippines (Intellectual Property Code), in 1997. This is the applicable law with regard to the revival of petitioner's patent
application.Section7(7.1)(a)oftheIntellectualPropertyCodestates: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SECTION7.TheDirectorGeneralandDeputiesDirectorGeneral.

7.1.Functions.TheDirectorGeneralshallexercisethefollowingpowersandfunctions:

....
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

 b.ExerciseexclusiveappellatejurisdictionoveralldecisionsrenderedbytheDirectorofLegalAffairs,theDirector
of Patents, the Director of Trademarks, and the Director of the Documentation, Information and Technology
TransferBureau.ThedecisionsoftheDirectorGeneralintheexerciseofhisappellatejurisdictioninrespectofthe
decisionsoftheDirectorofPatents,andtheDirectorofTrademarksshallbeappealabletotheCourtofAppealsin
accordance with the Rules of Court and those in respect of the decisions of the Director of Documentation,
Information and Technology Transfer Bureau shall be appealable to the Secretary of Trade and Industry[.]
(Emphasissupplied)

Thus,itistheRulesofCourt,notthe1962RevisedRulesofPractice,whichgovernstheCourtofAppeals'proceedingsinappeals
fromthedecisionsoftheDirectorGeneraloftheIntellectualPropertyOfficeregardingtherevivalofpatentapplications.

Rule19oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatacourthasthediscretiontodeterminewhethertogiveduecoursetoanintervention.
Rule19,Section1states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

RULE19
INTERVENTION

SECTION1.Whomayintervene.Apersonwhohasalegalinterestinthematterinlitigation,orinthesuccessof
eitheroftheparties,oraninterestagainstboth,orissosituatedastobeadverselyaffectedbyadistributionor
otherdispositionofpropertyinthecustodyofthecourtorofanofficerthereofmay,withleaveofcourt,beallowed
tointerveneintheaction.Thecourtshallconsiderwhetherornottheinterventionwillundulydelayorprejudicethe
adjudicationoftherightsoftheoriginalparties,andwhetherornottheintervenor'srightsmaybefullyprotectedin
aseparateproceeding.

The only questions the court need to consider in a motion to intervene are whether the intervenor has standing to intervene,
whetherthemotionwillundulydelaytheproceedingsorprejudicerightsalreadyestablished,andwhethertheintervenor'srights
maybeprotectedinaseparateaction.108 chanrobleslaw

Ifanadministrativeagency'sproceduralrulesexpresslyprohibitaninterventionbythirdparties,theprohibitionislimitedonlyto
theproceedingsbeforetheadministrativeagency.OncethematterisbroughtbeforetheCourtofAppealsinapetitionforreview,
any prior prohibition on intervention does not apply since the only question to be determined is whether the intervenor has
establishedarighttointerveneundertheRulesofCourt.

Inthiscase,respondentTherapharma,Inc.fileditsMotionforLeavetoIntervene109beforetheCourtofAppeals,notbeforethe
Intellectual Property Office. In assessing whether to grant the intervention, the Court of Appeals considered respondent
Therapharma, Inc.'s legal interest in the case and its other options for the protection of its interests.110 This was within the
discretionoftheCourtofAppealsundertheRulesofCourt.

RespondentTherapharma,Inc.wasabletoshowthatithadlegalinteresttointerveneintheappealofpetitioner'srevivalofits
patentapplication.Whileitsinterventionmayhavebeenprematureasnopatenthasbeengrantedyet,petitioner'sownactions
gaverisetorespondentTherapharma,Inc.'srighttoprotectitslosartanproduct.

RespondentTherapharma,Inc.filedanapplicationforproductregistrationbeforetheBureauofFoodandDrugsonJune4,2003
and was granted a Certificate of Product Registration on January 27, 2004.111It conducted patent searches from October 15,
1995 and found that no patent application for losartan had been filed either before the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and
TechnologyTransferorbeforetheIntellectualPropertyOffice.112 chanrobleslaw

As early as December 11, 2003, petitioner through Merck was already sending communications threatening legal action if
respondentTherapharma,Inc.continuedtodevelopandmarketlosartaninthePhilippines.Theletterstated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Merck is strongly committed to the protection of its valuable intellectual property rights, including the subject
losartanpatents.Whilefaircompetitionbysaleofpharmaceuticalproductswhicharedomesticallyproducedlegally
isalwayswelcomedbyMerckandMSDPhilippines,Merckwillvigorouslypursueallavailablelegalremediesagainst
any unauthorized manufacturer, distributor or supplier of losartan in countries where its patents are in force and
wheresuchactivityisprohibitedbylaw.Thus,Merckiscommittedtopreventingthedistributionoflosartaninthe
Philippines if it originates from, or travels through, a country in which Merck holds patent rights.113 (Emphasis
supplied)

ThisletterwaspresentedbeforetheCourtofAppeals,whicheventuallygrantedtherevivalofthepatentapplicationinitsAugust
31, 2004 Decision. Petitioner had no pending patent application for its losartan product when it threatened respondent
Therapharma,Inc.withlegalaction.114 chanrobleslaw

Respondent Therapharma, Inc. expressed its willingness to enter into a NonUse and Confidentiality Contract if there was a
pendingpatentapplication.115Afterseveralnegotiationsontheclausesofthecontract,116thepartieswereunabletocometoan
agreement.InitsletterdatedMay24,2004,117respondentTherapharma,Inc.expresseditsfrustrationonpetitioner'srefusalto
giveaclearansweronwhetherithadapendingpatentapplication: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

For easy reference, we have reproduced below paragraph 5 of the Confidentiality and NonUse Agreement
("ConfidentialityAgreement"),underscoringyourproposedamendment: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

"THERAPHARMAagreesthatuponreceiptofSpecificationsandClaimsofApplicationNo.35526orat
anytimethereafter,beforeitbecomespartofthepublicdomain,throughnofaultofTHERAPHARMA,
it will not, either directly or indirectly, alone, or through, on behalf of, or in conjunction with any
 other person or entity, make use of any information contained therein, particularly the product
coveredbyitsclaimsandtheequivalentsthereof,inanymannerwhatsoever."

Wefindyourproposedinsertionodd.Whatmaybeconfidential,andwhichweagreeyouhaveeveryrighttoprotect
by way of the Confidentiality Agreement, are the Specifications and Claims in the patent application, not the
product per se. The product has been in the market for years. Hence, how can it be confidential? Or is the
ambiguityintendedtocreatealegalhandlebecauseyouhavenocauseofactionagainstusshouldwelaunchour
ownversionofthelosartanproduct?

....

Finally, the questions we posed in our previous letters are plain and simple Is the Philippine Patent
ApplicationNo.35526stillpendingbeforetheIPO,i.e.,ithasneitherbeenwithdrawnbyyourlicensor
nor denied registration by the IPO for any reason whatsoever? When did your licensor file said
applicationwiththeIPO?Thesequestionsareeasytoanswer,unlessthereisanintentiontomislead.Youare
alsoawarethattheIPOistheonlygovernmentagencythatcangrantletterspatent.Thisiswhywefinddisturbing
your statement that the pendency of the patent application before the IPO is "not relevant". Hence, unless we
receiveunequivocalanswerstothequestionsabove,weregretthatwecannotagreetoexecutetheConfidentiality
Agreementotherwise,wemaybeacknowledgingbycontractarightthatyoudonothave,andneverwillhave,by
law.118(Emphasisandunderscoringintheoriginal)

ThethreatoflegalactionagainstrespondentTherapharma,Inc.wasrealandimminent.IfrespondentTherapharma,Inc.waited
untilpetitionerwasgrantedapatentapplicationsoitcouldfileapetitionforcompulsorylicensingandpetitionforcancellationof
patent under Section 240119and Section 247120 of the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice,121 its continued marketing of Lifezar
wouldbeconsideredasaninfringementofpetitioner'spatent.

EvenassumingthattheIntellectualPropertyOfficegrantedtherevivalofPhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526backin2000,
petitioner'sclaimofabsoluteconfidentialityinpatentproceedingsisinaccurate.

Inthe1962RevisedRulesofPractice,theBureauofPatents,Trademarks,andTechnologyTransferpreviouslyrequiredsecrecyin
pendingpatentapplications.Section13states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

13.Pendingapplicationsarepreservedinsecrecy.Noinformationwillbegiventoanyonerespectingthefilingby
anyparticularpersonofanyapplicationforapatent,thependencyofanyparticularcasebeforetheOffice,orthe
subjectmatterofanyparticularapplication,unlessthesameisauthorizedbytheapplicantinwriting,andunlessit
shallbenecessary,intheopinionoftheDirectorofPatentsfortheproperconductofbusinessbeforetheOffice.

The Intellectual Property Code, however, changed numerous aspects of the old patent law. The Intellectual Property Code was
enactednotonlytoamendcertainprovisionsofexistinglawsontrademark,patent,andcopyright,butalsotohonorthecountry's
commitments under the World Trade Organization Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS
Agreement),atreatythatenteredforceinthePhilippinesonJanuary1,1995.122 chanrobleslaw

ThemandatorydisclosurerequirementintheTRIPSAgreement123precipitatedtheshiftfromafirsttoinventsystemtoafirstto
filesystem.ThefirsttofilesystemrequiredcitizensofforeigncountriestoregistertheirpatentsinthePhilippinesbeforetheycan
sueforinfringement.124 chanrobleslaw

Lawmakers, however, expressed their concern over the extension of the period of protection for registered patents.125 Under
Section21126ofRepublicActNo.165,apatenthadatermof17years.TheIntellectualPropertyCodeextendedtheperiodto20
years.127chanrobleslaw

DuringtheinterpellationsbeforetheHouseofRepresentatives,thenRepresentativeNeptaliGonzalesII(Gonzales)explainedthat
under the Intellectual Property Code, the period of protection would have been shortened because of the publication
requirement: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

MR.TAADA.Undertheproposedmeasure,YourHonor,whatistheperiodofprotectionthatisgiventotheholder
ofthepatentregistered?

MR.GONZALES.Seventeenyearsfromgrantofpatent,Mr.Speaker.Unlikebefore...

MR.TAADA.Underthepresentlaw,Mr.Speaker.

MR.GONZALES.Imean17yearsfromfiling,Mr.Speaker,unlikebeforewhichis20yearsfromgrant.Okay.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Seventeen years from filing under the existing law, 20 years from grant under the
proposed measure. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed measure seeks to extend the grant of the
patent.

MR.TAADA.Butyouhavemadetheperiodofprotectionlonger,Mr.Speaker.

MR.GONZALES.Onthecontrary,Mr.Speaker,whenasimilarquestionwaspreviouslypropoundedbefore,actually
Mr. Speaker, it may decrease in fact the period of protection, Mr. Speaker. Because unlike before 17 years from
grant,Mr.Speaker,now20yearsfromapplicationorfromfilingbutactually,Mr.Speaker,itnormallytakesthree
to four years before a patent is actually granted even under the proposed measure. Because as you can see[,]
publicationintheBPTTTGazettewouldeventakenplaceafter18monthsfromfiling.Inotherwords,theprocedure
itselfissuchamannerthatnormallytakesaperiodofaboutthreeyearstofinallygrantthepatent.Soevenif20
 itselfissuchamannerthatnormallytakesaperiodofaboutthreeyearstofinallygrantthepatent.Soevenif20
years is given from the time of filing actually in essence it will be the same, Mr. Speaker, because under the
existinglaw17yearsfromgrant.Butevenunderourexistinglawfromthetimethatapatentapplicationisfiledit
alsotakesaboutthreetofouryears,Mr.Speaker,tograntthesame.

Now, why from filing, Mr. Speaker? Because the patent holder applicant is now required to publish in a manner
easilyunderstoodbyapersontrainedorwiththesameskillasthatofapatentholder.Andfromthattimethisis
published,thisprocesscoveredbythepatentisalreadymadeavailable.Infact,fromthetimethatitispublished,
anyinterestedpersonmayevenexamineandgoovertherecordsasfiledwiththeBPTTTand,therefore,thisnew
technologyornewinventionisnowmadeavailabletopersonsequippedorpossessedwiththesameskillsasthatof
thepatentholder.Andthatisthereasonwhythepatentisthetimeofthepatentisnowtackedfromthetimeit
isfiledbecauseasacompromiseitisnowmandatorytopublishthesaidpatenttogetherwithitsdescriptionthe
description of the process and even would, at times demand the deposit of sample of the industrial design, Mr.
Speaker.128 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

GonzalesfurtherclarifiedthatthepublicationrequirementsoftheIntellectualPropertyCodewouldnecessarilyshortentheperiod
forconfidentialityofpatentapplications: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

MR. MONFORT. Now, another question is, (another is) you know, the time from the filing of the date up to
publication which is the period of pendency or confidentiality, may I know how many years will it take, that
confidentialityperiod,variability.

MR.GONZALES.Eighteenmonths,Mr.Speaker.

MR.MONFORT.Howmany?

MR.GONZALES.Eighteenmonths.

MR.MONFORT.Idonotthinkitis18months.

MR.GONZALES.Itisprovidedforinthelaw,Mr.Speaker,becausepriortothepublication,naturally,therecords
becomeconfidentialbecausetheessenceofapatent,trademark,orcopyrightistogivetheauthorortheinventor
exclusiverighttoworkonhisowninvention.Andthatishisinvention,andnaturally,itisbutrightthatheshould
havetheexclusiverightoverhisinvention.

On theotherhand,the law requires that after 18 months, it should now be published. Whenitisnowpublished,
naturally, it ceases to be confidential in character because it is now ready for examination. It is now ready for
possiblecopyingofanyinterestedpersonbecausetheapplication,aswehaverepeatedlysaidonthefloor,would
requirethefilingofadescriptionoftheinventionthatcanbecarriedoutbyapersonsimilarlytrainedinthearts
andsciencesasthatofthepatentholder.129 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Thus,theabsolutesecrecyrequiredbythe1962RevisedRulesofPracticewouldnotbeapplicabletoapatentapplicationbefore
the Intellectual Property Office. Section 13 of the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice does not appear in the Intellectual Property
Code,130intheRulesandRegulationsonInventions,131orintheRevisedImplementingRulesandRegulationsforPatents,Utility
ModelsandIndustrialDesign.132TheIntellectualPropertyCodenowstatesthatallpatentapplicationsmustbepublishedinthe
IntellectualPropertyOfficeGazetteandthatanyinterestedpartymayinspectalldocumentssubmittedtotheIntellectualProperty
Office. The patent application is only confidential before its publication. Sections 44 and 45 of the Intellectual Property Code
provide: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SECTION44.PublicationofPatentApplication.

44.1.ThepatentapplicationshallbepublishedintheIPOGazettetogetherwithasearchdocumentestablishedby
oronbehalfoftheOfficecitinganydocumentsthatreflectpriorart,aftertheexpirationofeighteen(18)months
fromthefilingdateorprioritydate.

44.2. After publication of a patent application, any interested party may inspect the application documents filed
withtheOffice.

44.3.TheDirectorGeneral,subjecttotheapprovaloftheSecretaryofTradeandIndustry,mayprohibitorrestrict
thepublicationofanapplication,ifinhisopinion,todosowouldbeprejudicialtothenationalsecurityandinterests
oftheRepublicofthePhilippines.(n)

SECTION45.ConfidentialityBeforePublication.Apatentapplication,whichhasnotyetbeenpublished,andall
relateddocuments,shallnotbemadeavailableforinspectionwithouttheconsentoftheapplicant.

Itwasinaccurate,therefore,forpetitionertoarguethatsecrecyinpatentapplicationspreventsanyinterventionfrominterested
parties.TheconfidentialityinpatentapplicationsundertheIntellectualPropertyCodeisnotabsolutesinceapartymayalready
interveneafterthepublicationoftheapplication.

IV

Anabandonedpatentapplicationmayonlyberevivedwithinfour(4)monthsfromthedateofabandonment.Noextensionofthis
periodisprovidedbythe1962RevisedRulesofPractice.Section113states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

113.Revivalofabandonedapplication. An application abandoned for failure to prosecute may be revived as a
pendingapplicationifitisshowntothesatisfactionoftheDirectorthatthedelaywasunavoidable.Anabandoned
 applicationmayberevivedasapendingapplicationwithinfourmonthsfromthedateofabandonmentupongood
cause shown and upon the payment of the required fee of P25. An application not revived within the specified
periodshallbedeemedforfeited.

Petitionerarguesthatitwasnotnegligentintheprosecutionofitspatentapplication133sinceitwasAtty.Mapiliorhisheirswho
failedtoinformitofcrucialdevelopmentswithregardtoitspatentapplication.134Itarguesthatasaclientinaforeigncountry,it
doesnothaveimmediatesupervisionoveritslocalcounselsoitshouldnotbeboundbyitscounsel'snegligence.135Inanycase,
it complied with all the requirements for the revival of an abandoned application under Rule 113 of the 1962 Revised Rules of
Practice.136 chanrobleslaw

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that petitioner was inexcusably and grossly negligent in the prosecution of its patent
applicationsinceitallowedeight(8)yearstopassbeforeaskingforastatusupdateonitsapplication.137RespondentIntellectual
PropertyOfficearguesthatpetitioner'sinactionforeight(8)yearsconstitutesactualabandonment.138Italsopointsoutthatfrom
thetimepetitionersubmitteditsnewSpecialPowerofAttorneyonSeptember29,1996,ittookthemanotherfour(4)yearsto
requestastatusupdateonitsapplication.139 chanrobleslaw

Under Chapter VII, Section 111(a) of the 1962 Revised Rules of Practice, a patent application is deemed abandoned if the
applicantfailstoprosecutetheapplicationwithinfourmonthsfromthedateofthemailingofthenoticeofthelastactionbythe
BureauofPatents,Trademarks,andTechnologyTransfer,andnotfromapplicant'sactualnotice.Section111(a)states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

ChapterVII

TIMEFORRESPONSEBYAPPLICANTABANDONMENTOFAPPLICATION

111. Abandonment for failure to respond within the time limit. (a) If an applicant fails to prosecute his
applicationwithinfourmonthsafterthedatewhenthelastofficialnoticeofactionbytheOfficewasmailedtohim,
orwithinsuchtimeasmaybefixed(rule112),theapplicationwillbecomeabandoned.

AccordingtotherecordsoftheBureauofPatents,Trademarks,andTechnologyTransferChemicalExaminingDivision,petitioner
filedPhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526onJuly10,1987.ItwasassignedtoanexamineronJune7,1988.AnOfficeAction
wasmailedtopetitioner'sagent,Atty.Mapili,onJuly19,1988.Becausepetitionerfailedtorespondwithintheallowableperiod,
theapplicationwasdeemedabandonedonSeptember20,1988.140UnderSection113,petitionerhaduntilJanuary20,1989to
fileforarevivalofthepatentapplication.ItsPetitionforRevival,however,wasfiledonMay30,2002,14113yearsafterthedate
ofabandonment.

Section113hassincebeensupersededbySection133.4oftheIntellectualPropertyCode,Rule930oftheRulesandRegulations
onInventions,andRule929oftheRevisedImplementingRulesandRegulationsforPatents,UtilityModelsandIndustrialDesign.
Theperiodoffour(4)monthsfromthedateofabandonment,however,remainsunchanged.TheIntellectualPropertyCodeeven
providesforashorterperiodofthree(3)monthswithinwhichtofileforrevival: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SECTION133.ExaminationandPublication.

....

133.4.Anabandonedapplicationmayberevivedasapendingapplicationwithinthree(3)monthsfromthedateof
abandonment,upongoodcauseshownandthepaymentoftherequiredfee.

Rule930oftheRulesandRegulationsonInventionsprovides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Rule 930. Revival of application. An application deemed withdrawn for failure to prosecute may be revived as a
pending application within a period of four (4) months from the mailing date of the notice of withdrawal if it is
shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the failure was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence.

Apetitiontoreviveanapplicationdeemedwithdrawnmustbeaccompaniedby(1)ashowingofthecauseofthe
failuretoprosecute,(2)acompleteproposedresponse,and(3)therequiredfee.

Anapplicationnotrevivedinaccordancewiththisruleshallbedeemedforfeited.

Rule929oftheRevisedImplementingRulesandRegulationsforPatents,UtilityModelsandIndustrialDesignprovides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Rule929.RevivalofApplication.Anapplicationdeemedwithdrawnforfailuretoprosecutemayberevivedasa
pending application within a period of four (4) months from the mailing date of the notice of withdrawal if it is
shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the failure was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence.

Apetitiontoreviveanapplicationdeemedwithdrawnshallbeaccompaniedby:

(a)Ashowingofajustifiablereasonforthefailuretoprosecute
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(b)Acompleteproposedresponseand
(c)Fullpaymentoftherequiredfee.

Norevivalshallbegrantedtoanapplicationthathasbeenpreviouslyrevivedwithcost.

AnapplicationnotrevivedinaccordancewiththisRuleshallbedeemedforfeited.

Evenifthedelaywasunavoidable,orthefailuretoprosecutewasduetofraud,accident,mistake,orexcusablenegligence,orthe
Petitionwasaccompaniedbyacompleteproposedresponse,orallfeeswerepaid,thePetitionwouldstillbedeniedsincethese
regulationsonlyprovideafour(4)monthperiodwithinwhichtofilefortherevivaloftheapplication.The rules do not provide
anyexceptionthatcouldextendthisfour(4)monthperiodto13years.

Petitioner'spatentapplication,therefore,shouldnotberevivedsinceitwasfiledbeyondtheallowableperiod.

V

Evenassumingthatthefour(4)monthperiodcouldbeextended,petitionerwasinexcusablynegligentintheprosecutionofits
patentapplication.

Negligenceisinexcusableifitscommissioncouldhavebeenavoidedthroughordinarydiligenceandprudence.142Itisalsosettled
thatnegligenceofcounselbindstheclientasthis"ensuresagainsttheresultinguncertaintyandtentativenessofproceedingsif
clientswereallowedtomerelydisowntheircounsels'conduct."143 chanrobleslaw

Petitioner'sresidentagent,Atty.Mapili,wasundoubtedlynegligentinfailingtorespondtotheOfficeActionsentbytheBureauof
Patents,Trademarks,andTechnologyTransferonJune19,1988.Becauseofhisnegligence,petitioner'spatentapplicationwas
declaredabandoned.Hewasagainnegligentwhenhefailedtorevivetheabandonedapplicationwithinfour(4)monthsfromthe
dateofabandonment.

PetitionertriestodisownAtty.Mapili'sconductbyarguingthatitwasnotinformedoftheabandonmentofitspatentapplication
orofAtty.Mapili'sdeath.Byitsownevidence,however,petitionerrequestedastatusupdatefromAtty.MapilionlyonJuly18,
1995,eight(8)yearsafterthefilingofitsapplication.144ItallegedthatitonlyfoundoutaboutAtty.Mapili'sdeathsometimein
March 1996, as a result of its senior patent attorney's visit to the Philippines.145Although it was in petitioner's discretion as a
foreignclienttoputitscompletetrustandconfidenceonitslocalresidentagent,therewasacorrelativedutyonitsparttobe
diligentinkeepingitselfupdatedontheprogressofitspatentapplications.Itsfailuretobeinformedoftheabandonmentofits
patentapplicationwascausedbyitsownlackofprudence.

InBernardov.CourtofAppeals,146"[n]oprudentpartywillleavethefateofhiscaseentirelytohislawyer....Itisthedutyof
apartylitiganttobeincontactwithhiscounselfromtimetotimeinordertobeinformedoftheprogressofhiscase."147 chanrobleslaw

Even if Atty. Mapili's death prevented petitioner from submitting a petition for revival on time, it was clearly negligent when it
subsequentlyfailedtoimmediatelyappriseitselfofthestatusofitspatentapplication.

UponlearningofAtty.Mapili'sdeath,petitionerissuedaPowerofAttorneyandAppointmentofResidentAgentinfavorofBito,
Lozada, Ortega & Castillo on March 25, 1996.148Despite the immediate action in the substitution of its resident agent, it only
requested a status update of Philippine Patent Application No. 35526 from the Intellectual Property Office on December 14,
2000,149orfour(4)yearsafteritlearnedofAtty.Mapili'sdeath.

Petitioner attempts to explain that it took them four (4) years to request a status update because the Bureau of Patents,
Trademarks, and Technology Transfer failed to take any action when it submitted its Power of Attorney and Appointment of
ResidentAgentinfavorofBito,Lozada,Ortega&Castillo.150ThePowerofAttorney,however,showsthatitwasonlytoinform
theBureauthatallnoticesrelatingtoitspendingpatentapplicationsshouldbesenttoit.PhilippinePatentApplicationNo.35526
was declared abandoned on September 20, 1988. As far as the Bureau was concerned, it was a forfeited application that had
alreadybeenarchived.ItwasnottheBureau'sdutytoresurrectpreviousnoticesofforfeitedandabandonedapplicationstobe
sent to new resident agents unless a specific status update was requested. Considering that petitioner only requested a status
updateonDecember14,2000,itwasonlythenthattheIntellectualPropertyOfficewouldstartsendingnoticestoit.

Contrarytotheposturingofpetitioner,Schuartzisapplicable.

In Schuartz, several foreign inventors seeking to file patent applications in the Philippines hired the law firm Siguion Reyna,
MontecilloandOngsiakotoprocesstheirapplications.151TheBureauofPatents,Trademarks,andTechnologyTransfermailedthe
lawfirmseveralnoticesofabandonmentonitspatentapplicationsfromJune1987toSeptember1987.Thelawfirmonlyfound
out about this in December 1987, after it dismissed two (2) of its employees in charge of handling correspondences from the
Bureau.152The law firm filed petitions for revival of its patent applications from March 1988, all of which were denied by the
DirectoroftheBureauofPatentsforbeingfiledoutoftime.153AnappealwassubsequentlyfiledbeforetheCourtofAppealsbut
wasdismissedforbeingfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiod.154 chanrobleslaw

This Court found that although the Court of Appeals may have erred in counting the period for appeal, it could not grant the
Petition.ThisCourtstated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

[Petitionerslostsightofthefactthatthepetitioncouldnotbegrantedbecauseoflaches.Priortothefilingofthe
petitionforrevivalofthepatentapplicationwiththeBureauofPatents,anunreasonableperiodoftimehadlapsed
duetothenegligenceofpetitioners'counsel.Bysuchinaction,petitionersweredeemedtohaveforfeitedtheirright
torevivetheirapplicationsforpatent.

Facts show that the patent attorneys appointed to follow up the applications for patent registration had been
negligent in complying with the rules of practice prescribed by the Bureau of Patents. The firm had been notified
about the abandonment as early as June 1987, but it was only after December 7, 1987, when their employees
Bangkas and Rosas had been dismissed, that they came to know about it. This clearly showed that petitioners'
counselhadbeenremissinthehandlingoftheirclients'applications.

 "Alawyer'sfidelitytothecauseofhisclientrequireshimtobeevermindfuloftheresponsibilitiesthatshouldbe
expectedofhim.Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim."Intheinstantcase,petitioners'patent
attorneys not only failed to take notice of the notices of abandonment, but they failed to revive the application
withinthefourmonthperiod,asprovidedintherulesofpracticeinpatentcases.Theseapplicationsaredeemed
forfeiteduponthelapseofsuchperiod.155(Emphasissupplied)

Petitioner attempts to distinguish itself from Schuartz by arguing that the petitioners in Schuartz had actual notice of
abandonmentwhilepetitionerherewasonlyabletohaveactualnoticewhenitreceivedPaperNo.2.

Thefour(4)monthperiodinSection111156ofthe1962RevisedRulesofPractice,however,isnotcountedfromactualnoticeof
abandonment but from mailing of the notice. Since it appears from the Intellectual Property Office's records that a notice of
abandonmentwasmailedtopetitioner'sresidentagentonJuly19,1988,157thetimefortakingactioniscountedfromthisperiod.
Petitioner'spatentapplicationcannotberevivedsimplybecausetheperiodforrevivalhasalreadylapsedandnoextensionofthis
periodisprovidedforbythe1962RevisedRulesofPractice.

VI

Therightofprioritygiventoapatentapplicantisonlyrelevantwhentherearetwoormoreconflictingpatentapplicationsonthe
same invention. Because a right of priority does not automatically grant letters patent to an applicant, possession of a right of
prioritydoesnotconferanypropertyrightsontheapplicantintheabsenceofanactualpatent.

Petitioner argues that its patent application was filed on July 10, 1987, within 12 months from the prior filing of a U.S. patent
application on July 11, 1986.158It argues that it is protected from becoming part of the public domain because of convention
priorityundertheParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustrialPropertyandSection9ofRepublicActNo.165.159 chanrobleslaw

RespondentTherapharma,Inc.,ontheotherhand,arguesthatamerepatentapplicationdoesnotvestanyrightintheapplicant
beforetheissuanceofthepatent.160Itarguesthatthe"prioritydate"arguedbypetitionerisonlyrelevantindeterminingwho
hasabetterrighttothepatentamongtheotherapplicantswhosubsequentlyapplyforthesameinvention.161 chanrobleslaw

UnderSection31oftheIntellectualPropertyCode,arightofpriorityisgiventoanypatentapplicantwhohaspreviouslyapplied
forapatentinacountrythatgrantsthesameprivilegetoFilipinos.Section31states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SECTION31.RightofPriority.Anapplicationforpatentfiledbyanypersonwhohaspreviouslyappliedforthe
sameinventioninanothercountrywhichbytreaty,convention,orlawaffordssimilarprivilegestoFilipinocitizens,
shallbeconsideredasfiledasofthedateoffilingtheforeignapplication:Provided,That:

a.thelocalapplicationexpresslyclaimspriority
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

b.itisfiledwithintwelve(12)monthsfromthedatetheearliestforeignapplicationwasfiledand cralawlawlibrary

c.acertifiedcopyoftheforeignapplicationtogetherwithanEnglishtranslationisfiledwithinsix(6)monthsfrom
thedateoffilinginthePhilippines.

Apatentapplicantwiththerightofpriorityisgivenpreferenceinthegrantofapatentwhentherearetwoormoreapplicantsfor
thesameinvention.Section29oftheIntellectualPropertyCodeprovides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SECTION29.FirsttoFileRule.Iftwo(2)ormorepersonshavemadetheinventionseparatelyandindependently
of each other, the right to the patent shall belong to the person who filed an application for such invention, or
wheretwoormoreapplicationsarefiledforthesameinvention,totheapplicantwhohastheearliestfilingdateor,
theearliestprioritydate.

Since both the United States162and the Philippines163 are signatories to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property,anapplicantwhohasfiledapatentapplicationintheUnitedStatesmayhavearightofpriorityoverthesameinvention
in a patent application in the Philippines.164However, this right of priority does not immediately entitle a patent applicant the
grantofapatent.Arightofpriorityisnotequivalenttoapatent.Otherwise,apatentholderofanymemberstateoftheParis
Conventionneednotapplyforpatentsinothercountrieswhereitwishestoexerciseitspatent.

It was, therefore, inaccurate for petitioner to argue that its prior patent application in the United States removed the invention
fromthepublicdomaininthePhilippines.ThisargumentisonlyrelevantifrespondentTherapharma,Inc.hadaconflictingpatent
application with the Intellectual Property Office. A right of priority has no bearing in a case for revival of an abandoned patent
application.

VII

Thegrantofapatentistoprovideprotectiontoanyinventorfromanypatentinfringement.165Onceaninventionisdisclosedto
thepublic,onlythepatentholderhastheexclusiverighttomanufacture,utilize,andmarkettheinvention.166InCreserPrecision
Systemsv.CourtofAppeals:167

Under American jurisprudence, an inventor has no commonlaw right to a monopoly of his invention. He has the
righttomake,useandvendhisowninvention,butifhevoluntarilydisclosesit,suchasbyofferingitforsale,the
worldisfreetocopyanduseitwithimpunity.Apatent,however,givestheinventortherighttoexcludeallothers.
Asapatentee,hehastheexclusiverightofmaking,usingorsellingtheinvention.168 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Under the Intellectual Property Code, a patent holder has the right to "to restrain, prohibit and prevent"169 any unauthorized
person or entity from manufacturing, selling, or importing any product derived from the patent. However, after a patent is
granted and published in the Intellectual Property Office Gazette,170 any interested third party "may inspect the complete
description,claims,anddrawingsofthepatent."171 chanrobleslaw

The grant of a patent provides protection to the patent holder from the indiscriminate use of the invention. However, its
mandatorypublicationalsohasthecorrelativeeffectofbringingnewideasintothepublicconsciousness.Afterthepublicationof
thepatent,anypersonmayexaminetheinventionanddevelopitintosomethingfurtherthanwhattheoriginalpatentholdermay
haveenvisioned.Afterthelapseof20years,172theinventionbecomespartofthepublicdomainandisfreeforthepublictouse.
InPearlandDeanv.Shoemart,Inc.:173

To be able to effectively and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention, a patent is a
primordialrequirement.Nopatent,noprotection.Theultimategoalofapatentsystemistobringnewdesignsand
technologiesintothepublicdomainthroughdisclosure.Ideas,oncedisclosedtothepublicwithouttheprotectionof
avalidpatent,aresubjecttoappropriationwithoutsignificantrestraint.

Ononesideofthecoinisthepublicwhichwillbenefitfromnewideasontheotheraretheinventorswhomustbe
protected.AsheldinBauer&Cievs.O'Donnell,"Theactsecuredtotheinventortheexclusiverighttomakeuse,
andvendthethingpatented,andconsequentlytopreventothersfromexercisinglikeprivilegeswithouttheconsent
of the patentee. It was passed for the purpose of encouraging useful invention and promoting new and useful
inventionsbytheprotectionandstimulationnewandusefulinventionsbytheprotectionandstimulationgivento
inventivegenius,andwasintendedtosecuretothepublic,afterthelapseoftheexclusiveprivilegesgrantedthe
benefitofsuchinventionsandimprovements."

Thelawattemptstostrikeanidealbalancebetweenthetwointerests: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

"(The p)atent system thus embodies a carefully crafted bargain for encouraging the creation and
disclosure of new useful and nonobvious advances in technology and design, in return for the
exclusiverighttopracticetheinventionforanumberofyears.Theinventormaykeephisinvention
secretandreapitsfruitsindefinitely.Inconsiderationofitsdisclosureandtheconsequentbenefitto
the community, the patent is granted. An exclusive enjoyment is guaranteed him for 17 years, but
upontheexpirationofthatperiod,theknowledgeoftheinventioninurestothepeople,whoarethus
enabledtopracticeitandprofitbyitsuse."

The patent law has a threefold purpose: "first, patent law seeks to foster and reward invention second, it
promotesdisclosuresofinventionstostimulatefurtherinnovationandtopermitthepublictopracticetheinvention
once the patent expires third, the stringent requirements for patent protection, seek to ensure that ideas in the
publicdomainremainthereforthefreeuseofthepublic."

It is only after an exhaustive examination by the patent office that a patent is issued. Such an indepth
investigationisrequiredbecause"inrewardingausefulinvention,therightsandwelfareofthecommunitymustbe
fairlydealtwithandeffectivelyguarded.Tothatend,theprerequisitestoobtainingapatentarestrictlyobserved
andwhenapatentisissued,thelimitationsonitsexerciseareequallystrictlyenforced.Tobeginwith,agenuine
invention or discovery must be demonstrated lest in the constant demand for new appliances, the heavy hand of
tributebelaidoneachslighttechnologicaladvanceinart."174(Emphasissupplied)

In addition, a patent holder of inventions relating to food or medicine does not enjoy absolute monopoly over the patent. Both
RepublicActNo.165andtheIntellectualPropertyCodeprovideforcompulsorylicensing.Compulsorylicensingisdefinedinthe
Intellectual Property Code as the "grant a license to exploit a patented invention, even without the agreement of the patent
owner."175 chanrobleslaw

UnderRepublicActNo.165,acompulsorylicensemaybegrantedtoanyapplicantthree(3)yearsafterthegrantofapatentif
theinventionrelatestofoodormedicinenecessaryforpublichealthorsafety.176InSmith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs.
CourtofAppeals:177

Section34ofR.A.No.165,eveniftheActwasenactedpriortothePhilippines'adhesiontothe[Paris]Convention,
fits well within the aforequoted provisions of Article 5 of the Paris Convention. In the explanatory note of Bill No.
1156whicheventuallybecameR.A.No.165,thelegislativeintentinthegrantofacompulsorylicensewasnotonly
toaffordothersanopportunitytoprovidethepublicwiththequantityofthepatentedproduct,butalsotoprevent
thegrowthofmonopolies.Certainly,thegrowthofmonopolieswasamongtheabuseswhichSectionA,Article5of
theConventionforesaw,andwhichourCongresslikewisewishedtopreventinenactingR.A.No.165.178 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Thepatentholder'sproprietaryrightoverthepatentonlylastsforthree(3)yearsfromthegrantofthepatent,afterwhichany
personmaybeallowedtomanufacture,use,orselltheinventionsubjecttothepaymentofroyalties: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The right to exclude others from the manufacturing, using, or vending an invention relating to food or medicine
shouldbeconditionedtoallowinganypersontomanufacture,use,orvendthesameafteraperiodofthreeyears
fromthedateofthegrantoftheletterspatent.Afterall,thepatenteeisnotentirelydeprivedofanyproprietary
right. In fact, he has been given the period of three years of complete monopoly over the patent. Compulsory
licensing of a patent on food or medicine without regard to the other conditions imposed in Section 34 is not an
unduedeprivationofproprietaryinterestsoverapatentrightbecausethelawseestoitthatevenafterthreeyears
of complete monopoly something is awarded to the inventor in the form of a bilateral and workable licensing
agreement and a reasonable royalty to be agreed upon by the parties and in default of such agreement, the
DirectorofPatentmayfixthetermsandconditionsofthelicense.179 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Apatentisamonopolygrantedonlyforspecificpurposesandobjectives.Thus,itsproceduresmustbecompliedwithtoattainits
social objective. Any request for leniency in its procedures should be taken in this context. Petitioner, however, has failed to
convincethiscourtthattherevivalofitspatentapplicationwouldhaveasignificantimpactonthepharmaceuticalindustry.

Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is considered a "major risk factor for cardiovascular disease"180such as "heart disease,
stroke,kidneyfailureandblindness."181InastudyconductedbytheWorldHealthOrganization,25%ofadultsaged21yearsand
older in the Philippines suffer from high blood pressure.182According to the Department of Health, heart disease remains the
leadingcauseofmortalityinthePhilippines.183AngiotensinIIReceptorBlockingImidazoleor"losartan"isoneofthemedications
usedforthetreatmentofhypertension.184 chanrobleslaw

InastudyconductedbythePhilippineInstituteforDevelopmentStudies,"affordabilityofdrugsremainsaseriousproblem"185in
the Philippines. It found that because of the cost of drugs, accessibility to drugs become prohibitive for the lowestearning
households and are "even more prohibitive for the unemployed and indigent."186Several measures have been enacted by the
governmenttoaddressthehighcostsofmedicine,amongthem,paralleldrugimportation187andthepassageofRepublicActNo.
9502, otherwise known as the Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008.188Figures submitted by
respondent Therapharma, Inc., however, also show that the presence of competition in the local pharmaceutical market may
ensurethepublicaccesstocheapermedicines.

According to respondent Therapharma, Inc., the retail price of petitioner's losartan product, Cozaar, decreased within one (1)
monthofrespondentTherapharma,Inc.'sentryintothemarket:189

BRAND TRADER RETAILPRICE RETAILPRICE

AsofLifezar'sfirstentry
Withinonemonthfrom
intothemarketonJune Lifezar'sentryorbyJuly
4,2004 4,2004

LIFEZAR Therapharma 50mgP20.20 50mgP20.20

50mgP39.50 50mgP39.50
COZAAR Merck
100mgP55.00 100P44.00

RespondentTherapharma,Inc.alsopresentedfiguresshowingthattherewasa44%increaseinthenumberoflosartanunitssold
withinfive(5)monthsofitsentryintothemarket.190MoreFilipinosareabletopurchaselosartanproductswhentherearetwo
(2)differentplayersprovidingcompetitivepricesinthemarket.

Lifezar,andanotherofrespondentTherapharma,Inc.'sproducts,Combizar,havealsobeenrecommendedascheaperalternative
losartanmedication,sincetheywerepriced"50percentlessthanforeignbrands."191 chanrobleslaw

Publicinterestwillbeprejudicedif,despitepetitioner'sinexcusablenegligence,itsPetitionforRevivalisgranted.Evenwithouta
pendingpatentapplicationandtheabsenceofanyexceptiontoextendtheperiodforrevival,petitionerwasalreadythreatening
to pursue legal action against respondent Therapharma, Inc. if it continued to develop and market its losartan product,
Lifezar.192Oncepetitionerisgrantedapatentforitslosartanproducts,CozaarandHyzaar,thelossofcompetitioninthemarket
for losartan products may result in higher prices. For the protection of public interest, Philippine Patent Application No. 35526
shouldbeconsideredaforfeitedpatentapplication.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheResolutiondatedJanuary31,2006andtheAmendedDecisiondatedAugust30,2006
oftheCourtofAppealsareAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

Velasco,Jr.,*DelCastillo,(ActingChairperson),andMendoza,JJ.,concur.
Brion,J.,onleave.

Endnotes:

*DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledatedNovember3,2014.

1Rollo,pp.1270.ThePetitionwasfiledunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.

2Id.at94122.

3Id.at8292.

4Id.at13.

5Id.

6Id.at14.

7Id.

8Id.

9Id.

10NowknownasBito,Lozada,Ortega,DelCastillo.

11TheagencywasformerlyknownastheBureauofPatents,Trademarks,andTechnologyTransfer.

12Id.at401.

13Id.at403404.

14Id.

15Id.at415417.Forbrevity,"thelawfirmofOrtega,DelCastillo,Bacorro,Odulio,Calma,andCarbonellacting
onbehalfofE.IDupontNemoursandCompany"fromhereonshallbereferredtoas"E.I.DupontNemours."

16Id.at409414.

17Id.at410.

18Id.at410.

19Id.at409410.

20Id.at412.Section113isquotedinthePetitionforRevivalas:

Section 113. Revival of abandoned application. an application abandoned for failure to prosecute may be
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

revivedasapendingapplicationwithinaperiodoffourmonthsfromthemailingdateofthenoticeofabandonment
if it isshowntothesatisfaction of the Director that the delay was due to fraud, accident,mistakeandexcusable
negligence.

Apetitiontoreviveanabandonedapplicationmustbepromptlyfiledaftertheapplicantisnotifiedof,orotherwise
becomes aware of the abandonment, and must be accompanied by (1) a showing of the cause of delay (2) a
completeproposedresponseand(3)therequiredfeesassetforthinRule15.

21Id.at418423.

22TheResolutionwaspennedbyDirectorofPatentsEpifanioM.EvascoandPatentExaminerPrecilaO.Bulilan.

23Id.at422423.

24Id.at424439.

25 cralawred Id.at194204.

26Id.at21.

27Id.at124133.TheDecisionwaspennedbythenAssociateJustice(nowPresidingJustice)AndresB.Reyes,Jr.
and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina ArevaloZenarosa of the Seventeenth
Division,CourtofAppeals,Manila.

28Id.at130.

29Id.at94.

30Id.at82.

31Id.at85.

32Id.at8384.

33Id.at83.

34Id.at84.

35Id.at8292.TheResolutionwaspennedbythenAssociateJustice(nowPresidingJustice)AndresB.Reyes,Jr.
andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRosmariD.CarandangandMoninaArevaloZenarosaoftheTenthDivision,
CourtofAppeals,Manila.

36Id.at88.

37Id.at89.

38Id.at94.

39Id. at 94122. The Amended Decision was penned by then Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Andres B.
Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina ArevaloZenarosa of the
FormerSeventeenthDivision,CourtofAppeals,Manila.

40Id.at108.

41Id.

42Id.at108109.

43Id.at109110.

44Id.at110.

45Id.

46390Phil.819(2000)[PerJ.Pardo,FirstDivision].

47Rollo,p.111.

48Id.at1270.

49Id.at134.

50Id.at144193and282309.

51Id.at315.

52Id.at459460.

53Id.at488.

54Id.at489.

55Id.at491498.

56Id.at543.

57Id.at544.

58Id.at545.

59Silveriov.CourtofAppeals,225Phil.459,472(1986)[PerActingC.J.Teehankee,EnBanc].

60FirstCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,553Phil.527,541(2007)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,ThirdDivision].

61Silveriov.CourtofAppeals,225Phil.459,471472(1986)[PerActingC.J.Teehankee,EnBanc].

62FirstCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,553Phil.527,541(2007)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,ThirdDivision].

63Id.

64Ordoezv.JudgeGustilo,270Phil.579,585586(1990)[PerJ.Paras,SecondDivision]citingFrancisco,Rulesof
Court,Vol.1.

65SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule19,sec.1.

66PahilaGarridov.Tortogo,etal.,671Phil.320,334(2011)[PerJ.Bersamin,FirstDivision]citingTanv.Republic,
551Phil.201,210(2007)[PerJ.SandovalGutierrez,FirstDivision]andMirandav.CourtofAppeals,163Phil.285,
321(1976)[PerJ.Teehankee,EnBanc].

67Id.at335,citingUnitedOverseasBank(formerlyWestmontBank)v.JudgeRos,556Phil.178,191(2007)[Per
J.ChicoNazario,ThirdDivision]RudeconManagementCorporationv.Singson,494Phil.581,597(2005)[PerJ.
Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision]andSitchonv.SheriffofOccidentalNegros,80Phil.397,399(1948)[PerJ.Feria,
EnBanc].

68SeeCity of LapuLapu v. Philippine Economic Export Zone, G.R. No. 184203. November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA
524,589[PerJ.Leonen,SecondDivision]andSaludv.TheCourtofAppeals,G.R.No.100156,June27,1994,233
SCRA384,389[PerJ.Puno,SecondDivision].

69Republicv.Malabanan,646Phil.631,637(2010)[PerJ.Villarama,Jr.,ThirdDivision]citingLeonciov.DeVera,
569Phil.512,516(2008)[PerJ.Nachura,ThirdDivision].

70CityofLapuLapuv.PhilippineEconomicZoneAuthority,G.R.No.184203,November26,2014,742SCRA524,
557[PerJ.Leonen,SecondDivision]citingFarEasternSuretyandInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.People,721Phil.760,767
(2013)[PerJ.Brion,SecondDivision]andRepublicv.Malabanan,646Phil.631,637(2010)[PerJ.Villarama,Jr.,
ThirdDivision].

71Republicv.Malabanan,646Phil.631,638(2010)[PerJ.Villarama,Jr.,ThirdDivision]citingLeonciov.DeVera,
569Phil.512,516(2008)[PerJ.Nachura,ThirdDivision],inturncitingElenitaS.Binay,inhercapacityasMayor
of the City of Makati, Mario Rodriguez and Priscilla Ferrolino v. Emerita Odea, 551 Phil. 681, 68 (2007) [Per J.
Nachura, En Banc] and VelayoFong v. Velayo, 539 Phil. 377, 386387 (2006) [Per J. AustriaMartinez, First
Division]. See also Century Iron Works v. Baas, 711 Phil. 576, 586 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]
andTongonanHoldingsv.Atty.Escao,672Phil.747,758(2011)[PerJ.Mendoza,ThirdDivision].

72Rule19oftheRulesofCourtreferstoInterventionsbeforethecourt.

73SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule45,sec.5.

74Rollo,p.484.

75Id.at487.

76Id.at538542.

77G.R.No.166944,August18,2014,733SCRA202[PerJ.Bersamin,FirstDivision].

78708 Phil. 9 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]. Galvez actually citesAir Philippines v. Zamora, 529 Phil. 718
(2006)[PerJ.AustriaMartinez,FirstDivision].

79Magsino v. De Ocampo, G.R. No. 166944, August 18, 2014, 733 SCRA 202, 211212 [Per J. Bersamin, First
Division],citingGalvezv.CourtofAppeals,708Phil.9,20(2013)[PerJ.Bersamin,EnBanc].

80RULESOFCOURT,Rule42,sec.2provides:

SEC. 2. Form and contents. The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

intendedforthecourtbeingindicatedassuchbythepetitioner,andshall(a)statethefullnamesofthepartiesto
the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents (b) indicate
the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters
involved,theissuesraised,thespecificationoferrorsoffactorlaw,orboth,allegedlycommittedbytheRegional
Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal (d) be accompanied by
clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified
correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the
pleadingsandothermaterialportionsoftherecordaswouldsupporttheallegationsofthepetition.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not theretofore
commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the
statusofthesameandifheshouldthereafterlearnthatasimilaractionorproceedinghasbeenfiledorispending
beforetheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppeals,ordifferentdivisionsthereof,oranyothertribunaloragency,he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days
therefrom.

81RULESOFCOURT,Rule45,sec.4provides:

SEC. 4. Contents of petition. The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

intendedforthecourtbeingindicatedassuchbythepetitionerandshall(a)statethefullnameoftheappealing
partyasthepetitionerandtheadversepartyasrespondent,withoutimpleadingthelowercourtsorjudgesthereof
eitheraspetitionersorrespondents(b)indicatethematerialdatesshowingwhennoticeofthejudgmentorfinal
orderorresolutionsubjectthereofwasreceived,whenamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration,ifany,wasfiled
andwhennoticeofthedenialthereofwasreceived(c)setforthconciselyastatementofthemattersinvolved,and
the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicateoriginal,oracertifiedtruecopyofthejudgmentorfinalorderorresolutioncertifiedbytheclerkofcourt
of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as
would support the petition and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last
paragraphofsection2,Rule42.

82RULESOFCOURT,Rule42,sec.2andRule45,sec.4.

83Rollo,pp.124133.

84Id.at8292.

85Id.at94122.

86Seerollo,pp.87,89to90,CourtofAppealsResolutiondatedJanuary31,2006andpp.96100,115116,Court
ofAppealsAmendedDecisiondatedAugust30,2006.

87Rollo,pp.328351.

88Id.at352379.

89Id.at380382.

90Id.at384385.

91Id.at387397.

92Id.at398400.

93Id.at401402.

94Id.at403404.

95Id.at409417.

96Id.at418423.

97Id.at424439.

98SpousesManaliliv.SpousesArsenio,422Phil.214,220(2001)[PerJ.Panganiban,ThirdDivision].

99Rollo,p.545.

100Id.

1011962RevisedRulesofPracticebeforethePhilippinesPatentOfficeinPatentCases,sec.78provides:

78.ApplicationsprosecutedexparteApatentapplicationisprosecutedexpartebytheapplicantthatisthe
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

proceedingsarelikealawsuitinwhichthereisaplaintiff,butnodefendant,thecourtitselfactingastheadverse
party.

1021962RevisedRulesofPracticebeforethePhilippinesPatentOfficeinPatentCases,sec.79provides:

79.Proceedings a contest between the Principal Examiner and the applicant.Anexparteproceedinginthe
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Patent Office is a law contest between the Principal Examiner, representing the public and trying to give the
inventortheleastpossiblemonopolyinreturnforhisdisclosure,andtheapplicantofhisattorneytryingtogetas
muchmonopolyaspossible.

103Rollo,pp.546547.

104Id.at548549.

105Id.at499and607610.

106Id.at499.

107Id.at500501.

108RULESOFCOURT,Rule19,sec.1.

109Rollo,pp.216238.

110Id.at8587.

111Id.at218.

112Id.at217218.

113Id.at240241.

114Id.at242243.ThiswasalsopointedoutbyrespondentTherapharma,Inc.initsFebruary13,2004replyletter
toMerck.

115Id.

116Id.at244259.

117Id.at260261.

118Id.at260261.

119RulesofPracticeinPatentCases,sec.240provides:

240.Whomayfilepetitionforcompulsorylicensetimeforfilingthepetition.Uponpaymentoftherequired
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

fee,anypersonmayapplytotheDirectorofPatentsforthegrantofalicenseunderaparticularpatentatanytime
aftertheexpirationofthreeyearsfromthedateofthegrantofthepatent.

120RulesofPracticeinPatentCases,sec.247provides:

247.Whomayfileapetitionforcancellationtimeforfilingpetition.Anypersonwhohasbeen,is,orwillbe
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

injuredbythegrantofaletterspatentmay,onpaymentoftherequiredfee,andwithinthreeyearsfromthedate
the issue of the patent was published in theOfficial Gazette, petition the Director of Patents to cancel the said
patentoranyclaimthereof.(RepublicActNo.165,section28).

121 These sections have since been superseded by Chap. VI, sec. 61 and Chap. X, sec. 93 of the Intellectual
PropertyCodeofthePhilippines.

122SeeH.No.08098,10thCong.(1996),November12,1996,p.6.

123AGREEMENTONTRADERELATEDASPECTSOFINTELLECTUALPROPERTYRIGHTS(1995),art.29provides:

Article29.ConditionsonPatentApplicants.1.Membersshallrequirethatanapplicantforapatentshalldisclose
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

theinventioninamannersufficientlyclearandcompletefortheinventiontobecarriedoutbyapersonskilledin
the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out the invention known to the
inventoratthefilingdateor,wherepriorityisclaimed,attheprioritydateoftheapplication.

124SeeH.No.08098,10thCong.(1996),March18,1997,pp.267268.

125SeeH.No.08098,10thCong.(1996),March18,1997,pp.272274.

126Rep.ActNo.165(1947),sec.21provides:

SECTION21.Termofpatent.Thetermofapatentshallbeginonthedatewhenthepatentisissuedasshown
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

onthefacethereofandshallexpireseventeenyearsthereafter.However,apatentshallceasetobeinforceand
effectofthepatenteefailstopaytheprescribedannualfeeswithintheprescribedtimeshereinafterprovidedorif
thepatentiscancelledinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisAct.

127Rep.ActNo.8293(1997),sec.54provides:

SECTION 54. Term of Patent. The term of a patent shall be twenty (20) years from the filing date of the
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

application.

128H.No.08098,10thCong.(1996),March18,1997,pp.272274.

129H.No.08098,10thCong.(1996),March20,1997,pp.355356.

130Rep.ActNo.8293(1997).

131PublishedDecember29,1998.

132PublishedApril20,2011.

133Rollo,p.557.

134Id.at566.

135Id.at567.

136Id.at568571.

137Id.at506.

138Id.at614.

139Id.at615616.

140Id.at403408.

141Id.at409414.

142Cityof Dagupan v. Maramba, 738 Phil. 71, 90 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing Madarang v.
SpousesMorales,G.R.No.199283,June9,2014,725SCRA480,494[PerJ.Leonen,ThirdDivision]andGuevarra
v.Bautista,593Phil.20,26(2008)[PerJ.Nachura,ThirdDivision].

143Id.citingSpousesQuev.CourtofAppeals,504Phil.616,626(2005)[PerJ.Carpio,FirstDivision]andInsular
LifeSavingsandTrustCompanyv.Runes,Jr.,479Phil.995,1008(2004)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision].

144Rollo,p.380.

145Id.at384.

146341Phil.413(1997)[PerJ.Panganiban,ThirdDivision].

147Id.at429,citingFernandezv.TamTiongTick,111Phil.773(1961)[PerJ.Barrera,EnBanc]andFlorendov.
Florendo,137Phil.255(1969)[PerJ.Fernando,EnBanc].

148Rollo,pp.398399.

149Id.at401402.

150Id.at563.

151Schuartzv.CourtofAppeals,390Phil.819,821(2000)[PerJ.Pardo,FirstDivision].

152Id.at822823.

153Id.at824.

154Id.

155Id.at825826,citing Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 654, 662 (1996)
[PerJ.Romero,ThirdDivision]Sumbadv.CourtofAppeals,368Phil.52,7576(1999)[PerJ.Mendoza,Second
Division]Villafuertev.Cortez,351Phil.915,919920(1998)[PerJ.Vitug,FirstDivision]and1962RevisedRules
ofPracticeinPatentCases,secs.111and113.

1561962RevisedRulesofPracticeinPatentCases,sec.111provides:

111. Abandonment for failure to respond within time limit.(a) If an applicant fails to prosecute his
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

applicationwithinfourmonthsafterthedatewhenthelastofficialnoticeofanyactionbytheOfficewasmailedto
him,orwithinsuchtimeasmaybefixed(rule112),theapplicationwillbecomeabandoned.(Emphasissupplied)

157Rollo,p.403.

158Id.at575576.

159Id.

160Id.at511.

161Id.

162 World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPOAdministered Treaties, Paris Convention Total Contracting
Parties<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?treaty_id=2> (visited August 30, 2016). Accession on
March18,1887.TreatywasinforcefromMay20,1887.

163 World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPOAdministered Treaties, Paris Convention Total Contracting
Parties<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?treaty_id=2> (visited August 30, 2016). Accession on
August12,1965.TreatywasinforcefromSeptember27,1965.

164ParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustrialProperty(1883),art.4(A)(1)provides:

A.(1)Anypersonwhohasdulyfiledanapplicationforapatent,orfortheregistrationofautilitymodel,orof
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

anindustrialdesign,orofatrademark,inoneofthecountriesoftheUnion,orhissuccessorintitle,shallenjoy,for
thepurposeoffilingintheothercountries,arightofpriorityduringtheperiodshereinafterfixed.

(2) Any filing that is equivalent to a regular national filing under the domestic legislation of any country of the
Union or under bilateral or multilateral treaties concluded between countries of the Union shall be recognized as
givingrisetotherightofpriority.

(3) Byaregularnational filing is meant any filing that is adequate to establish the date onwhichtheapplication
wasfiledinthecountryconcerned,whatevermaybethesubsequentfateoftheapplication.

165CreserPrecisionSystems,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,349Phil.687,695(1998)[PerJ.Martinez,SecondDivision].

166Id.

167349Phil.687(1998)[PerJ.Martinez,SecondDivision].

168Id.at696,citingBauerandCiev.O'Donnel,229US1,57L.Ed.38Sct.616.

169Rep.ActNo.8293(1997),sec.71.

170Rep.ActNo.8293(1997),sec.52.1.

171Rep.ActNo.8293(1997),sec.52.2.

172Rep.ActNo.8293(1997),sec.54.

173456Phil.474(2003)[PerJ.Corona,ThirdDivision].

174Id. at 491492,citing Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 US 141 [1989] U.S. v. Dubilier
CondenserCorp.,289U.S.178Aronsonv.QuickPointPencilCo.,440U.S.257,262(1979)KewaneeOilCo.v.
Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1994) Amador, Patents, p. 496 and Sears Roebuck v. Stiffel, 376 US 225, 229
(1964).

175Rep.ActNo.8293(1997),sec.93.

176Rep.ActNo.165(1947),sec.34.InthepresentIntellectualPropertyCode,asamendedbyRep.ActNo.9502,
thelawallowsthegrantofaspecialcompulsorylicenseundertheTRIPSAgreementfortheimportationofpatented
drugsandmedicines"toensureaccesstoqualityaffordablemedicines."

177342Phil.187(1997)[PerJ.Davide,Jr.,ThirdDivision].

178Id.at201,citingCongressionalRecord,HouseofRepresentatives,May12,1957,998.

179Parke,Davis&Co.v.Doctor'sPharmaceutical,Inc.,122Phil.392,402403(1965)[PerJ.BautistaAngelo,En
Banc].

180WorldHealthOrganization,Focus of High Blood Pressure, February 2014, World Health Organization Western
Pacific Region <http://www.wpro.who.int/philippines/typhoon_haiyan/media/Hypertension.pdf?ua=1> (visited
August30,2016).

181WorldHealthOrganization,Focus of High Blood Pressure, February 2014, World Health Organization Western
Pacific Region <http://www.wpro.who.int/philippines/typhoon_haiyan/media/Hypertension.pdf?ua=1> (visited
August30,2016).

182WorldHealthOrganization,Focus of High Blood Pressure, February 2014, World Health Organization Western
Pacific Region <http://www.wpro.who.int/philippines/typhoon_haiyan/media/Hypertension.pdf?ua=1> (visited
August30,2016).

183Leading Causes of Mortality, 5Year Average (20042008) & 2009, Department of Health
<http://portal.doh.gov.ph/node/198.html>(visitedAugust30,2016).

184Rollo, p. 14. Other medications are Atenolol and Captopril. See Oscar F. Picazo,Review of Cheaper Medicines
Program in the Philippines, Discussion Paper Series No. 201213, Philippine Institute of Development Studies
<http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps1213.pdf>(visitedAugust30,2016).

185OscarF.Picazo,ReviewofCheaperMedicinesPrograminthePhilippines,DiscussionPaperSeriesNo.201213,
Philippine Institute of Development Studies, <http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps1213.pdf> (visited August
30,2016).

186OscarF.Picazo,ReviewofCheaperMedicinesPrograminthePhilippines,DiscussionPaperSeriesNo.201213,
Philippine Institute of Development Studies, <http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps1213.pdf> (visited August
30,2016).

187See About NCPAM, National Center for Pharmaceutical Access and Management, Department of Health
<http://www.ncpam.doh.gov.ph/index.php/aboutncpam/ncpamhistory>(visitedAugust30,2016).

188An Act Providing for Cheaper and Quality Medicines, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 8293 or the
Intellectual Property Code, Republic Act No. 6675 or the Generics Act of 1988, and Republic Act No. 5921 or the
PharmacyLaw,andforOtherPurposes(2008).

189Rollo,p.478.

190Id.at479.

191 Willie T. Ong, M.D., I found Cheaper and Safer Drugs, August 21, 2007, Philippine Star,
<http://www.philstar.com/healthandfamily/14356/ifoundcheaperandsaferdrugs>(visitedAugust30,2016).

Also published in Philippine Council for Health Research and Development Website of the Department of Science
and Technology, <http://www.pchrd.dost.gov.ph/index.php/20120523074636/20120524000306/302
commonhandproblems>(visitedAugust30,2016).

192Rollo,pp.240241.