GR 82513; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82513. July 13, 1990. ADRIAN S. DE LA PAZ, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS AND PETROPHIL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
On February 9, 1982, respondent Petrophil Corporation (Petron) filed a petition with the Philippine Patent Office for the cancellation of Letters Patent No. 14132, issued to petitioner Adrian S. De La Paz for an invention related to fuel for diesel engines. Petron’s ground was that the invention was not new or patentable under the Patent Law. After De La Paz filed his answer and settlement efforts failed, trial on the merits proceeded. Petron presented its evidence and rested its case.
Thereafter, De La Paz filed a motion to dismiss, which was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, alleging that Petron failed to present sufficient evidence to support its petition for cancellation. Petron opposed the motion. The Director of Patents, in Resolution No. 87-07 dated June 23, 1987, denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for the reception of De La Paz’s evidence. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. De La Paz then filed the instant petition, alleging that the Director of Patents committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to dismiss on a procedural ground when it was purportedly clear that Petron had no cause of action.
ISSUE
Whether the Director of Patents committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence) filed after the respondent corporation had rested its case in a cancellation proceeding.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the denial based on the specific procedural rules governing patent cases. Rule 184-C(d) of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases explicitly states that no motion to dismiss on grounds enumerated in the Rules of Court shall be entertained; such grounds must instead be pleaded as affirmative defenses, with resolution deferred to the decision on the merits. The petitioner’s claim of “no cause of action” is precisely one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Court, which is prohibited by the patent rules.
Furthermore, Rule 184-G of the same rules expressly provides that no demurrer to evidence shall be entertained after the petitioner’s (in this context, the cancellation petitioner’s) evidence is presented, and the respondent shall forthwith be required to present evidence. The Court emphasized that these rules, promulgated by the Bureau of Patents pursuant to statutory authority, have the force of law and control procedure in that office. The suppletory application of the Rules of Court cannot prevail over these specific provisions. The rules are designed to allow liberality in evidence reception and to resolve the case’s merits only after all parties have presented their evidence. The Director’s observation that the case was nearing termination and that all matters should be threshed out in a decision on the merits was sound. The grant or denial of such a motion is addressed to the Director’s sound discretion, and absent a clear showing of grave abuse, which petitioner failed to demonstrate, the Court will not interfere.