Page 1 of 4

IPL - #04 - Manzano v CA

[G.R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997] 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
ANGELITA MANZANO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, and MELECIA MADOLARIA, as 1965 to 1970; that Ong helped in the casting of an LPG burner which was the same utility model
Assignor to NEW UNITED FOUNDRY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents. of a burner for which Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was issued, and that after her husbands
separation from the shop she organized Besco Metal Manufacturing (BESCO METAL, for
DECISION 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
BELLOSILLO, J.: 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
The primary purpose of the patent system is not the reward of the individual but the own model of an LPG burner called Ransome burner marked Exh. L, which was allegedly
advancement of the arts and sciences. The function of a patent is to add to the sum of useful manufactured in 1974 or 1975 and sold by her in the course of her business operation in the
knowledge and one of the purposes of the patent system is to encourage dissemination of name of BESCO METAL. Petitioner claimed that this Ransome burner (Exh. L) had the same
information concerning discoveries and inventions. This is a matter which is properly within the configuration and mechanism as that of the model which was patented in favor of private
competence of the Patent Office the official action of which has the presumption of correctness respondent Melecia Madolaria. Also presented by petitioner was a burner cup of an imported
and may not be interfered with in the absence of new evidence carrying thorough conviction that Ransome burner marked Exh M which was allegedly existing even before the patent application
the Office has erred. Since the Patent Office is an expert body preeminently qualified to of private respondent.
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.1 Petitioner presented two (2) other witnesses, namely, her husband Ong Bun Tua and Fidel
Francisco. Ong testified that he worked as a helper in the UNITED FOUNDRY from 1965 to
Petitioner Angelita Manzano filed with the Philippine Patent Office on 19 February 1982 an 1970 where he helped in the casting of LPG burners with the same form, configuration and
action for the cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-4609 for a gas burner registered in the name mechanism as that of the model covered by the Letters Patent issued to private respondent.
of respondent Melecia Madolaria who subsequently assigned the letters patent to New United Francisco testified that he had been employed with the Manila Gas Corporation from 1930 to
Foundry and Manufacturing Corporation (UNITED FOUNDRY, for brevity). Petitioner alleged that 1941 and from 1952 up to 1969 where he retired as supervisor and that Manila Gas Corporation
(a) the utility model covered by the letters patent, in this case, an LPG gas burner, was not imported Ransome burners way back in 1965 which were advertised through brochures to
inventive, new or useful; (b) the specification of the letters patent did not comply with the promote their sale.
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 Private respondent, on the other hand, presented only one witness, Rolando Madolaria, who
actual inventor of the utility model covered by the letters patent; and, (d) the letters patent was testified, among others, that he was the General Supervisor of the UNITED FOUNDRY in the
secured by means of fraud or misrepresentation. In support of her petition for cancellation foundry, machine and buffing section; that in his early years with the company, UNITED
petitioner further alleged that (a) the utility model covered by the letters patent of respondent had FOUNDRY was engaged in the manufacture of different kinds of gas stoves as well as burners
been known or used by others in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before she filed her based on sketches and specifications furnished by customers; that the company manufactured
application for letters patent on 9 December 1979; (b) the products which were produced in early models of single-piece types of burners where the mouth and throat were not detachable;
accordance with the utility model covered by the letters patent had been in public use or on sale that in the latter part of 1978 respondent Melecia Madolaria confided in him that complaints were
in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before the application for patent therefor was filed. being brought to her attention concerning the early models being manufactured; that he was
then instructed by private respondent to cast several experimental models based on revised
Petitioner presented the following documents which she correspondingly marked as exhibits: (a) sketches and specifications; that private respondent again made some innovations; that after a
affidavit of petitioner alleging the existence of prior art, marked Exh. A; (b) a brochure distributed few months, private respondent discovered the solution to all the defects of the earlier models
by Manila Gas Corporation disclosing a pictorial representation of Ransome Burner made by and, based on her latest sketches and specifications, he was able to cast several models
Ransome Torch and Burner Company, USA, marked Exh. D; and, (c) a brochure distributed by incorporating the additions to the innovations introduced in the models. Various tests were
Esso Gasul or Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., of the Philippines showing a picture of another conducted on the latest model in the presence and under the supervision of Melecia Madolaria
similar burner with top elevation view and another perspective view of the same burner, marked and they obtained perfect results. Rolando Madolaria testified that private respondent decided to
Exh. E. file her application for utility model patent in December 1979.
 Page 2 of 4
IPL - #04 - Manzano v CA
On 7 July 1986 the Director of Patents Cesar C. Sandiego issued Decision No. 86-56 denying application for utility model patent. Petitioner thus asks this Court to take judicial notice of the
the petition for cancellation and holding that the evidence of petitioner was not able to establish fact that Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., disappeared before 1979 and reappeared only during the
convincingly that the patented utility model of private respondent was anticipated. Not one of the Martial Law years as Petrophil Corporation. Petitioner also emphasizes that the brochures
various pictorial representations of business clearly and convincingly showed that the devices indicated the telephone number of Manila Gas Corporation as 5-79-81 which is a five (5)
presented by petitioner was identical or substantially identical with the utility model of the numbered telephone number existing before 1975 because telephones in Metro Manila started
respondent. The decision also stated that even assuming that the brochures depicted clearly to have six (6) numbers only after that year.
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 Petitioner further contends that the utility model of private respondent is absolutely similar to the
bars for the reason that they were undated. The dates when they were distributed to the public LPG burner being sold by petitioner in 1975 and 1976, and also to the Ransome burner depicted
were not indicated and, therefore, were useless prior art references. The records and evidence in the old brochures of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., fabricated by
also do not support the petitioners contention that Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was obtained by Ransome Torch and Burner Company of Oakland, California, USA, especially when considered
means of fraud and/or misrepresentation. No evidence whatsoever was presented by petitioner through actual physical examination, assembly and disassembly of the models of petitioner and
to show that the then applicant Melecia Madolaria withheld with intent to deceive material facts private respondent. Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals for disregarding the testimonies of Ong
which, if disclosed, would have resulted in the refusal by the Philippine Patent Office to issue the Bun Tua and Fidel Francisco for their failure to produce documents on the alleged importation by
Letters Patent under inquiry. Manila Gas Corporation of Ransome burners in 1965 which had the same configuration, form
and mechanism as that of the private respondents patented model.
Petitioner elevated the decision of the Director of Patents to the Court of Appeals which on 15
October 1993 affirmed the decision of the Director of Patents. Hence, this petition for review Finally, it is argued that the testimony of private respondents lone witness Rolando Madolaria
on certiorari alleging that the Court of Appeals erred (a) in relying on imaginary differences which should not have been given weight by the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals because it
in actuality did not exist between the model of private respondent covered by Letters Patent No. contained mere after-thoughts and pretensions.
UM-4609 and the previously known model of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., and Manila Gas
Corporation, making such imaginary differences grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
We cannot sustain petitioner. Section 7 of RA No. 165, as amended, which is the law on patents,
conjectures; (b) in rendering judgment based on misapprehension of facts; (c) in relying mainly
expressly provides -
on the testimony of private respondents sole witness Rolando Madolaria; and, (d) in not
canceling Letters Patent No. UM-4609 in the name of private respondent.
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.
Petitioner submits that the differences cited by the Court of Appeals between the utility model of
private respondent and the models of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc.,
are more imaginary than real. She alleges that based on Exhs. E, E-1, F and F-1 or the Further, Sec. 55 of the same law provides -
brochures of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., presented by petitioner,
the cup-shaped burner mouth and threaded hole on the side are shown to be similar to the utility Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. - (a) Any new, original and ornamental
model of private respondent. The exhibits also show a detachable burner mouth having a design for an article of manufacture and (b) any new model of implements or tools or of any
plurality of upwardly existing undulations adopted to act as gas passage when the cover is industrial product or of part of the same, which does not possess the quality of invention, but
attached to the top of said cup-shaped mouth all of which are the same as those in the patented which is of practical utility by reason of its form, configuration, construction or composition, may
model. Petitioner also denies as substantial difference the short cylindrical tube of the burner be protected by the author thereof, the former by a patent for a design and the latter by a patent
mouth appearing in the brochures of the burners being sold by Manila Gas Corporation and the for a utility model, in the same manner and subject to the same provisions and requirements as
long cylindered tube of private respondents model of the gas burner. relate to patents for inventions insofar as they are applicable except as otherwise herein
provided.
Petitioner argues that the actual demonstration made during the hearing disclosed the
similarities in form, operation and mechanism and parts between the utility model of private The element of novelty is an essential requisite of the patentability of an invention or discovery. If
respondent and those depicted in the brochures. The findings of the Patent Office and the Court a device or process has been known or used by others prior to its invention or discovery by the
of Appeals that the brochures of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., are applicant, an application for a patent therefor should be denied; and if the application has been
undated cannot overcome the fact of their circulation before private respondent filed her granted, the court, in a judicial proceeding in which the validity of the patent is drawn in question,
 Page 3 of 4
IPL - #04 - Manzano v CA
will hold it void and ineffective.2 It has been repeatedly held that an invention must possess the With respect to Exh. L, petitioner claimed it to be her own model of LPG burner allegedly
essential elements of novelty, originality and precedence, and for the patentee to be entitled to manufactured sometime in 1974 or 1975 and sold by her in the course of her business operation
the protection the invention must be new to the world.3 in the name of Besco Metal Manufacturing, which burner was denominated as Ransome burner

In issuing Letters Patent No. UM-4609 to Melecia Madolaria for an LPG Burner on 22 July 1981, xxxx
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 But a careful examination of Exh. L would show that it does not bear the word Ransome which is
was the original and first inventor. The burden of proving want of novelty is on him who avers it the burner referred to as the product being sold by the Petitioner. This is not the way to prove
and the burden is a heavy one which is met only by clear and satisfactory proof which that Exh. L anticipates Letters Patent No. UM-4609 through Exhs. C and D. Another factor
overcomes every reasonable doubt.4 Hence, a utility model shall not be considered new if before working against the Petitioners claims is that an examination of Exh. L would disclose that there
the application for a patent it has been publicly known or publicly used in this country or has is no indication of the time or date it was manufactured. This Office, thus has no way of
been described in a printed publication or publications circulated within the country, or if it is determining whether Exh. L was really manufactured before the filing of the aforesaid application
substantially similar to any other utility model so known, used or described within the country. 5 which matured into Letters Patent No. UM-4609, subject matter of the cancellation proceeding.

As found by the Director of Patents, the standard of evidence sufficient to overcome the At this juncture, it is worthwhile to point out that petitioner also presented Exh. M which is the
presumption of legality of the issuance of UM-4609 to respondent Madolaria was not legally met alleged burner cup of an imported Ransome burner. Again, this Office finds the same as
by petitioner in her action for the cancellation of the patent. Thus the Director of Patents unreliable evidence to show anticipation. It observed that there is no date indicated therein as to
explained his reasons for the denial of the petition to cancel private respondents patent - when it was manufactured and/or imported before the filing of the application for issuance of
patent of the subject utility model. What is more, some component parts of Exh. M are missing,
Scrutiny of Exhs. D and E readily reveals that the utility model (LPG Burner) is not anticipated. as only the cup was presented so that the same could not be compared to the utility model
Not one of the various pictorial representations of burners clearly and convincingly show that the (subject matter of this case) which consists of several other detachable parts in combination to
device presented therein is identical or substantially identical in construction with the aforesaid form the complete LPG burner.
utility model. It is relevant and material to state that in determining whether novelty or newness is
negatived by any prior art, only one item of the prior art may be used at a time. For anticipation xxxx
to occur, the prior art must show that each element is found either expressly or described or
under principles of inherency in a single prior art reference or that the claimed invention was
It must likewise be pointed out that Ong Bun Tua testified on the brochures allegedly of Manila
probably known in a single prior art device or practice. (Kalman v. Kimberly Clark, 218 USPQ
Gas and of Esso Gasul marked Exhs. E and F and on the alleged fact that Manila Gas
781, 789)
Corporation was importing from the United States Ransome burners. But the same could not be
given credence since he himself admitted during cross- examination that he has never been
Even assuming gratia arguendi that the aforesaid brochures do depict clearly on all fours each connected with Manila Gas Corporation. He could not even present any importation papers
and every element of the patented gas burner device so that the prior art and the said patented relating to the alleged imported ransome burners. Neither did his wife.6
device become identical, although in truth they are not, they cannot serve as anticipatory bars for
the reason that they are undated. The dates when they were distributed to the public were not
The above findings and conclusions of the Director of Patent were reiterated and affirmed by the
indicated and, therefore, they are useless prior art references.
Court of Appeals.7

xxxx
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
Furthermore, and more significantly, the model marked Exh. K does not show whether or not it LPG burner are matters which are better determined by the Patent Office. The technical staff of
was manufactured and/or cast before the application for the issuance of patent for the LPG the Philippine Patent Office composed of experts in their field has by the issuance of the patent
burner was filed by Melecia Madolaria. in question accepted private respondents model of gas burner as a discovery. There is a
presumption that the Office has correctly determined the patentability of the model8 and such
action must not be interfered with in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary.
 Page 4 of 4
IPL - #04 - Manzano v CA
The rule is settled that the findings of fact of the Director of Patents, especially when affirmed by subsequently assigned the same to private respondent United Foundry. Petitioner alleged that
the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by substantial evidence. the utility model covered by the letters patent was not inventive, new, or useful, the specification
Petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds for a reversal of the findings and conclusions of did not comply with the requirements of R.A. No. 165, that respondent was not the original, true,
the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals. and actual inventor nor did she derive her rights from the same, and that respondent was guilty
of fraud or misrepresentation in applying for the letters patent.
The alleged failure of the Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals to accord evidentiary
weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of petitioner showing anticipation is not a justification Petitioner also alleged that the utility model in question had already been in use and on sale
to grant the petition. Pursuant to the requirement of clear and convincing evidence to overthrow (petitioner herself being a distributor/seller of the said gas burners) in the Philippines for more
the presumption of validity of a patent, it has been held that oral testimony to show anticipation is than one year before the respondent filed for the application. Petitioner presented two undated
open to suspicion and if uncorroborated by cogent evidence, as what occurred in this case, it brochures of two different Gas companies (Manila Gas Corp. & Esso Gasul) which allegedly
may be held insufficient.9 depicts an identical gas burner as the one covered in respondent’s letters patent. Respondent
presented her husband as lone witness to testify that respondent, thru complaints of customers,
devised a way to solve the defects in the gas burners, and respondent’s innovation is now the
Finally, petitioner would want this Court to review all over again the evidence she presented
subject of the letters patent.
before the Patent Office. She argues that contrary to the decision of the Patent Office and the
Court of Appeals, the evidence she presented clearly proves that the patented model of private
respondent is no longer new and, therefore, fraud attended the acquisition of patent by private The Director of Patents denied the petition for cancellation, which was affirmed by the CA, on the
respondent. ground that petitioner was not able to convincingly establish that the patented utility model was
not novel. Petitioner failed to overcome her burden and overturn the presumption of legality of
the issuance of letters patent and that respondent withheld material facts with intent to deceive
It has been held that the question on priority of invention is one of fact. Novelty and utility are which, if disclosed, would have resulted in the refusal by the PPO to issue the letters patent.
likewise questions of fact. The validity of patent is decided on the basis of factual inquiries. Hence, this appeal.
Whether evidence presented comes within the scope of prior art is a factual issue to be resolved
by the Patent Office.10 There is question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the ISSUE: WON the CA erred in upholding the decision of the Director of Patents.
truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole
evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific RULING: NO. In issuing Letters Patent to respondent Madolaria for an LPG Burner, the PPO
surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of found her invention novel and patentable. The issuance of such patent creates a presumption
the situation.11 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
Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh one which is met only by clear and satisfactory proof which overcomes every reasonable doubt.
all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or
office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising As found by the Director of Patents, the standard of evidence sufficient to overcome the
errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable presumption of legality of the issuance of letters patent to respondent Madolaria was not legally
by this Court. met by petitioner in her action for the cancellation of the patent. The findings and conclusions of
the Director of Patent were reiterated and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The rule is settled
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of that the findings of fact of the Director of Patents, especially when affirmed by the Court of
the Philippine Patent Office is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by substantial evidence.

SO ORDERED. The validity of the patent issued by the PPO 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 PPO. The technical staff of the Philippine Patent Office
CASE DIGEST
composed of experts in their field has by the issuance of the patent in question accepted private
respondents model of gas burner as a discovery. There is a presumption that the Office has
FACTS: Petitioner Manzano filed with Philippine Patent Office an action for the cancellation of
correctly determined the patentability of the model and such action must not be interfered with in
Letters Patent for a gas burner registered in the name of private respondent Madolaria who
the absence of competent evidence to the contrary.