Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

093 Phil 113:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4572. May 22, 1953.]

DOLORITO M. FELICIANO and MAXIMO B. TAPINIO, applicants-appellees. MELITON D. ALBAÑA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent-Appellee.

Meliton D. Albaña in his own behalf.

Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for respondent and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PATENTS; ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS; REGISTRATION OF ASSIGNMENT IN PATENT OFFICE; JURISDICTION THEREON OF DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. — Assignments of patents and inventions covered thereby may be recorded in books and records kept for the purpose in the Patent Office if presented in due form (Republic Act 165, sections 51-53). But where a person other than the inventor files a motion with the Director of Patents praying that the applicant-inventor be compelled to sign the contract executed by a co-applicant-inventor and both applicant-inventors to acknowledge it before a notary public as well as another document which refers to the minutes of a meeting of the organizers of a manufacturing corporation, and then to have both documents recorded in the Patent Office and in the office of the registrar of deeds, the Director of Patents has no power and authority to compel the applicant-inventors to do what the movant is asking them to perform. What the movant asks the Director of Patents to do for him is essentially a judicial function which would require the determination of finding by a court of competent jurisdiction as to whether there was a meeting of the minds of the contracting parties before it could compel any of them to perform what the movant prays the court to order him to do.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


An application for patent was filed with the Patent Office.

Pending examination of the application, Meliton D. Albaña filed a motion to intervene claiming that the applicant-inventors had "sold and/or bartered and assigned to him their right to contract or deal the sale of their invention called Fel-Tap Meter Guard and Detector to or through the Corporation that they were then organizing under his direction and to fix and decide on the purchase price of it to at least P200,000 in installments cash and P300,000 in shares of stock of said Corporation . . ." and praying that applicant-inventor Maximo D. Tapinio be compelled to sign a contract (Appendix I) and, together with the other applicant-inventor Dolorito M. Feliciano who had already signed it, to acknowledge it and another contract (Appendix II) before a notary public, to have both contracts recorded in the Patent Office and in the office of the Register of Deeds, and that the patent for the invention be issued in his name and in the name of the inventors.

The motion was denied on the ground that under the provisions of the Patent Law (Republic Act No. 165) the Director of Patents has no jurisdiction or power to decide the question submitted to him.

The movant filed an amended motion to intervene claiming "that he is the assignee of inventors Dolorito M. Feliciano and Maximo Tapinio of the undivided part interests in the invention for whose letter— patent the named petitioners Dolorito M. Feliciano and Maximo Tapinio are herein applying."cralaw virtua1aw library

The amended motion was denied on the ground that the assignment made to the movant is not one of exclusive right to make, use and sell 1 the electrical contrivance for which patent is applied for; that it is just an authority to act as the selling agent for the inventors of the patent, if granted, and the invention covered thereby and to receive compensation therefor; and that not being entitled to have his name included as one of the patentees, if patent for the invention be granted, the movant has no right to intervene in the proceedings for the grant of the patent.

An exception to and a motion for reconsideration of the preceding order were noted and denied.

From the orders denying his motion to intervene the movant has appealed 2

What the appellant attempted to secure by his motion to intervene is clearly beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Director of Patents to grant. Despite the amendment to the first motion to intervene by which he claims assignment of the invention, still it remains that the alleged assignment is not of the invention but it is an agreement whereby he is to act as selling agent for the inventors of the patent (if granted) and of the invention covered thereby and to receive compensation therefor. this finding of the Director of Patents is supported by the following clauses found in the contract (Appendix I): "We (the inventors) . . . hereby declare and ratify that both of us are the co-inventors and joint fifty-fifty owners of the ’Fel-Tap Electric Meter Guard & Detector’ . . ." "We are now organizing a Corporation under the direction of Mr. Albaña (Meliton D. Albaña) to exploit and industrialize the invention . . . which we promise hereby to sell to said Corporation with its letter-patent . . . except the Royalty Right of the same, . . ." "For and in consideration of the monetary and other helps (help) that said Mr. Meliton D. Albaña . . . has rendered and is rendering us . . . of approaching, interesting and looking for subscribers and payers to the capital stocks (stock) of said Corporation to be . . . we hereby promise and actually pay to said Mr. Albaña in instalments fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) of said P200,000 instalments cash purchase price . . ." The above quoted terms and stipulations of the executory contract clearly show that it was not an assignment of the invention and the patent applied for.

Assignments of patents and inventions covered thereby may be recorded in books and records kept for the purpose in the Patent Office if presented in due form; 3 but the appellant does not ask for the registration of the alleged agreement between him and the inventors, because as it is not in due form it cannot be recorded, but prays that the Director of Patents compel applicant-inventor Maximo B. Tapinio to sign the contract executed and signed by the other applicant-inventor Dolorito M. Feliciano on 14 March 1050 (Appendix I) and both applicant-inventors to acknowledge it and another document which by all indications refers to the minutes of a meeting of the organizers of the Manufacturing Corporation held on 30 March 1950, before a notary public, and then to have both documents recorded in the Patent Office and in the office of the Registrar of Deeds. Under the provisions of the Patent Law (Republic Act NO. 165), the Director of Patents has no power and authority to compel the applicant-inventors to do what the appellant is asking them to perform. What the appellant asked the Director of Patents to do for him is essentially a judicial function which would require the determination or finding by a court of competent jurisdiction as to whether there was a meeting of the minds of the contracting parties before it could compel the applicant-inventors to perform what the appellant prays the court to order them to do. Aside from want of authority and power, the Director of Patents lacks the means to make such determination and finding which would be necessary before he could act on the appellant’s motion.

The orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 37, Republic Act No. 165.

2. Section 61, Republic Act No. 165.

3. Sections 51, 52 and 53, Republic Act No. 165.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310