CASE 1

ANGELITA MANZANO, petitioner, 
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and MELECIA MADOLARIA, as Assignor to NEW UNITED
FOUNDRY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
G.R. No. 113388
September 5, 1997

DOCTRINE: The primary purpose of the patent system is not the reward of the individual
but the advancement of the arts and sciences. The function of a patent is to add to the
sum of useful knowledge and one of the purposes of the patent system is to encourage
dissemination of information concerning discoveries and inventions. This is a matter
which is properly within the competence of the Patent Office the official action of which
has the presumption of correctness and may not be interfered with in the absence of
new evidence carrying thorough conviction that the Office has erred. Since the Patent
Office is an expert body preeminently qualified to determine questions of patentability,
its findings must be accepted if they are consistent with the evidence, with doubts as to
patentability resolved in favor of the Patent Office.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelita Manzano filed with the Philippine Patent Office an action for the
cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-4609 for a gas burner registered in the name of
respondent Melecia Madolaria who subsequently assigned the letters patent to New United
Foundry and Manufacturing Corporation (UNITED FOUNDRY, for brevity). Petitioner alleged
that (a) the utility model covered by the letters patent, in this case, an LPG gas burner,
was not inventive, new or useful; (b) the specification of the letters patent did not comply
with the requirements of Sec. 14, RA No. 165, as amended; (c) respondent Melecia
Madolaria was not the original, true and actual inventor nor did she derive her rights from
the original, true and actual inventor of the utility model covered by the letters patent;
and, (d) the letters patent was secured by means of fraud or misrepresentation. In support
of her petition for cancellation petitioner further alleged that (a) the utility model covered by the
letters patent of respondent had been known or used by others in the Philippines for more than
one (1) year before she filed her application for letters patent on 9 December 1979; (b) the
products which were produced in accordance with the utility model covered by the letters patent
had been in public use or on sale in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before the
application for patent therefor was filed.

Testifying for herself petitioner narrated that her husband Ong Bun Tua worked as a helper in
the UNITED FOUNDRY where respondent Melecia Madolaria used to be affiliated with from
1965 to 1970; that Ong helped in the casting of an LPG burner which was the same utility model
of a burner for which Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was issued, and that after her husband's
separation from the shop she organized Besco Metal Manufacturing (BESCO METAL, for
brevity) for the casting of LPG burners one of which had the configuration, form and component
parts similar to those being manufactured by UNITED FOUNDRY. Petitioner presented in
evidence an alleged model of an LPG burner marked Exh. "K" and covered by the Letters
Patent of respondent, and testified that it was given to her in January 1982 by one of her
customers who allegedly acquired it from UNITED FOUNDRY. Petitioner also presented in
evidence her own model of an LPG burner called "Ransome" burner marked Exh. "L," which
was allegedly manufactured in 1974 or 1975 and sold by her in the course of her business
operation in the name of BESCO METAL. Petitioner claimed that this "Ransome" burner (Exh.
"L") had the same configuration and mechanism as that of the model which was patented in
favor of private respondent Melecia Madolaria. Also presented by petitioner was a burner cup of
an imported "Ransome" burner marked Exh "M" which was allegedly existing even before the
patent application of private respondent.

The Director of Patents Cesar C. Sandiego issued Decision No. 86-56 denying the petition for
cancellation and holding that the evidence of petitioner was not able to establish convincingly
that the patented utility model of private respondent was anticipated. Not one of the various
pictorial representations of business clearly and convincingly showed that the devices
presented by petitioner was identical or substantially identical with the utility model of
the respondent. The decision also stated that even assuming that the brochures depicted
clearly each and every element of the patented gas burner device so that the prior art and
patented device became identical although in truth they were not, they could not serve as
anticipatory bars for the reason that they were undated. The dates when they were
distributed to the public were not indicated and, therefore, were useless prior art
references. The records and evidence also do not support the petitioner's contention that
Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was obtained by means of fraud and/or misrepresentation.

ISSUE
W/N the issuance of the Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was valid.

HELD
YES. We cannot sustain petitioner. Section 7 of RA No. 165, as amended, which is the law on
patents, expressly provides —

Sec. 7. Inventions patentable. Any invention of a new and useful machine, manufactured
product or substance, process or an improvement of any of the foregoing, shall be
patentable.

Further, Sec. 55 of the same law provides —

Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. — (a) Any new, original and
ornamental design for an article of manufacture and (b) any new model of implements or
tools or of any industrial product or of part of the same, which does not possess the
quality of invention, but which is of practical utility by reason of its form, configuration,
construction or composition, may be protected by the author thereof, the former by a
patent for a design and the latter by a patent for a utility model, in the same manner and
subject to the same provisions and requirements as relate to patents for inventions
insofar as they are applicable except as otherwise herein provided.

The element of novelty is an essential requisite of the patentability of an invention or discovery.

In issuing Letters Patent No. UM-4609 to Melecia Madolaria for an "LPG Burner" on 22 July
1981, the Philippine Patent Office found her invention novel and patentable. The issuance of
such patent creates a presumption which yields only to clear and cogent evidence that
the patentee was the original and first inventor. The burden of proving want of novelty is
on him who avers it and the burden is a heavy one which is met only by clear and
satisfactory proof which overcomes every reasonable doubt. Hence, a utility model shall
not be considered "new" if before the application for a patent it has been publicly known or
publicly used in this country or has been described in a printed publication or publications
circulated within the country, or if it is substantially similar to any other utility model so known,
used or described within the country.

As found by the Director of Patents, the standard of evidence sufficient to overcome the
presumption of legality of the issuance of UM-4609 to respondent Madolaria was not
legally met by petitioner in her action for the cancellation of the patent. The validity of the
patent issued by the Philippine Patent Office in favor of private respondent and the
question over the inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the improved model of the
LPG burner are matters which are better determined by the Patent Office. The technical
staff of the Philippine Patent Office composed of experts in their field has by the
issuance of the patent in question accepted private respondent's model of gas burner as
a discovery. There is a presumption that the Office has correctly determined the
patentability of the model and such action must not be interfered with in the absence of
competent evidence to the contrary.

The rule is settled that the findings of fact of the Director of Patents, especially when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds for a reversal of the findings and conclusions
of the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals.