G.R. No.

113388 September 5, 1997

ANGELITA MANZANO, petitioner, vs.COURT OF AEALS, !"# MELECIA MA$OLARIA, !% A%%&'"or to NE( UNITE$
FOUN$R) MANUFACTURING CORORATION, respondents.
*ELLOSILLO, J.:
The primary purpose of the patent system is not the reward of the individual but the advancement of the arts and sciences. The
function of a patent is to add to the sum of useful knowledge and one of the purposes of the patent system is to encourage
dissemination of information concerning discoveries and inventions.
1. Petitioner Angelita Manzano filed with the Philippine Patent ffice an action for the cancellation of !etters Patent "o.
#M$%&'( +or ! '!% b,r"er re'&%tere# &" t-e "!me o+ re%po"#e"t Me.e/&! M!#o.!r&! who %,b%e0,e"t.1 !%%&'"e#
t-e .etter% p!te"t to #")T*+ ,#"+-.
/. Petitioner alleged that
0a1 the utility model covered by the letters patent, &" t-&% /!%e, !" LG '!% b,r"er, was not inventive, new or
useful233 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 patent2 and, 0d1 the letters patent was
secured by means of fraud or misrepresentation. )n support of her petition for cancellation
T4AT the utility model covered by the letters patent of respondent had been 2"o3" or ,%e# b1 ot-er% &" t-e
-&.&pp&"e% +or more t-!" o"e 411 year before she filed her application for letters patent on ( +ecember 1(5(2 the
products which were produced in accordance with the utility model had been in public use or on sale in the Philippines
for more than one 011 year before the application for patent therefor was filed.
+67 P-*7*"T*+8 0a1 affidavit of petitioner alleging the e3istence of prior art, marked *3h. 9A29 0b1 a brochure
distributed by Manila :as 6orporation disclosing a pictorial representation of -ansome ;urner made by -ansome
Torch and ;urner 6ompany, #7A, marked *3h. 9+29 and, 0c1 a brochure distributed by *sso :asul or *sso 7tandard
*astern, )nc., of the Philippines showing a picture of another similar burner with top elevation view and another
perspective view of the same burner, marked *3h. 9*.9
%. petitioner narrated that her husband ng ;un Tua worked as a helper in the #")T*+ ,#"+-. where respondent
Melecia Madolaria used to be affiliated with from 1(&< to 1(5'2
that ng helped in the casting of an !P: burner which was the same utility model of a burner for which !etters
Patent "o. #M$%&'( was issued, and that
after her husband=s separation from the shop she organized ;esco Metal Manufacturing 0;*76 M*TA!, for
brevity1 for the casting of !P: burners one of which had the configuration, form and component parts similar to
those being manufactured by #")T*+ ,#"+-..
Petitioner presented an alleged model of an !P: burner covered by the !etters Patent of respondent, and
testified that it was given to her in >anuary 1(?/ by one of her customers who allegedly ac@uired it from #")T*+
,#"+-..
74* P-*7*"T*+ -er o3" mo#e. o+ !" LG b,r"er /!..e# 5R!"%ome5 b,r"er 6 E78 L which was allegedly
manufactured in 1(5% or 1(5< and sold by her in the name of ;*76 M*TA!.
Petitioner claimed that this 9-ansome9 burner had the same configuration and mechanism as that of the model
which was patented in favor of private respondent Melecia Madolaria. Also presented by petitioner was a burner
cup of an imported 9-ansome9 burner marked *3h 9M9 which was allegedly e3isting even before the patent
application of private respondent.
Petitioner presented two other witnesses, namely, her husband ng and ,idel ,rancisco. . ,rancisco testified that
he had been employed with the Manila :as 6orporation from 1(A' to 1(%1 and from 1(</ up to 1(&( where he
retired as supervisor and that Manila :as 6orporation imported 9-ansome9 burners way back in 1(&< which were
advertised through brochures to promote their sale.
Private respondent presented only one witness, -olando Madolaria, who testified, among others, that -e 3!% t-e Ge"er!.
S,per9&%or o+ t-e UNITE$ FOUN$R) &" t-e +o,"#r1, m!/-&"e !"# b,++&"' %e/t&o"2
that in the latter part of 1(5? respondent Melecia Madolaria confided in him that complaints were being brought to her
attention concerning the early models being manufactured2 that he was then instructed by private respondent to cast
several e3perimental models based on revised sketches and specifications2 that private respondent again made some
innovations2 that after a few months, pr&9!te re%po"#e"t #&%/o9ere# t-e %o.,t&o" to !.. t-e #e+e/t% o+ t-e e!r.&er
mo#e.% !"#, b!%e# o" -er .!te%t %2et/-e% !"# %pe/&+&/!t&o"%, -e 3!% !b.e to /!%t %e9er!. mo#e.%
&"/orpor!t&"' t-e !##&t&o"% to t-e &""o9!t&o"% &"tro#,/e# &" t-e mo#e.%. Barious tests were conducted under the
supervision of Melecia Madolaria and they obtained perfect results.
Ro.!"#o M!#o.!r&! te%t&+&e# t-!t pr&9!te re%po"#e"t #e/&#e# to +&.e -er !pp.&/!t&o" +or ,t&.&t1 mo#e. p!te"t &"
$e/ember 1(5(.
+)-*6T- , PAT*"T78 C7andiegoC +*")*+ the petition for cancellation and holding that the evidence of petitioner was not
able to establish convincingly that the patented utility model of private respondent was anticipated.
"ot one of the various pictorial representations of business clearly and convincingly showed that the devices
presented by petitioner was identical or substantially identical with the utility model of the respondent.
even assuming that the brochures #ep&/te# /.e!r.1 e!/- !"# e9er1 e.eme"t o+ t-e p!te"te# '!% b,r"er #e9&/e so
that the prior art and patented device became identical although in truth they were not, they could "ot %er9e !%
!"t&/&p!tor1 b!r% +or t-e re!%o" t-!t t-e1 3ere undated.
The dates when they were distributed to the public were not indicated and, therefore, 3ere ,%e.e%% pr&or !rt
re+ere"/e%. 6A A,,)-M*+.
;*,-* 76, P*T)T)"*- +)7P#T*7 T4AT T4* M+*! , P- A"+ T4* M+*!7 , *77 A"+ MA")!A :A7 4AB*
+),,*-*"6*7.
;ased on the brochures of Manila :as 6orporation and *sso 7tandard *astern, )nc., the cup$shaped burner mouth
and threaded hole on the side are shown to be similar to the utility model of private respondent.
a detachable burner mouth having a plurality of upwardly e3isting undulations adopted to act as gas passage when the
cover is attached to the top of said cup$shaped mouth all of which are the same as those in the patented model.
the utility model of private respondent is absolutely similar to the !P: burner being sold by petitioner in 1(5< and
1(5&, and also to the 9-ansome9 burner depicted in the old brochures of Manila :as and *sso 7tandard., fabricated
by -ansome Torch and ;urner 6ompany of akland, 6alifornia, #7A, especially when considered through actual
physical e3amination, assembly and disassembly of the models of petitioner and private respondent.
)ssue8 D" the patent of P- should be cancelled. "o.
!AD78
a. 7ection 5 of -A "o. 1&<, as amended, which is the law on patentsE 7ec. 5. Inventians 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.
b. 7ec. <<. Design patents and patents for utility models. E 0a1 Any new, original and ornamental design for an article of
manufacture and 0b1 any new model of implements or tools or of any industrial product or of part of the same, which does not
possess the @uality 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 subFect to the same provisions and re@uirements as relate to patents for inventions insofar as they are
applicable e3cept as otherwise herein provided.
+6T-)"*8 T-e e.eme"t o+ "o9e.t1 &% !" e%%e"t&!. re0,&%&te o+ t-e p!te"t!b&.&t1 o+ !" &"9e"t&o" or #&%/o9er1. )f a device
or process has been known or used by others prior to its invention or discovery by the applicant, an application for a
patent therefor should be denied2 and if the application has been granted, the court, in a Fudicial proceeding in which the validity
of the patent is drawn in @uestion, will hold it void and ineffective. )t has been repeatedly held that an invention must possess the
essential elements of novelty, originality and precedence, and for the patentee to be entitled to the protection the invention must
be new to the world.
4*!+8 )n issuing !etters Patent "o. #M$%&'( to Melecia Madolaria for an 9!P: ;urner9 on // >uly 1(?1, t-e -&.&pp&"e !te"t
O++&/e +o,"# -er &"9e"t&o" "o9e. !"# p!te"t!b.e.
The issuance of such patent /re!te% ! pre%,mpt&o" 3-&/- 1&e.#% o".1 to /.e!r !"# /o'e"t e9&#e"/e t-!t t-e
p!te"tee 3!% t-e or&'&"!. !"# +&r%t &"9e"tor.
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.
4ence, a utility model shall not be considered 9new9 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.
A% +o,"# b1 t-e $&re/tor o+ !te"t%, t-e %t!"#!r# o+ e9&#e"/e %,++&/&e"t to o9er/ome t-e pre%,mpt&o" o+
.e'!.&t1 o+ t-e &%%,!"/e o+ UM6:;<9 to re%po"#e"t M!#o.!r&! 3!% "ot .e'!..1 met b1 pet&t&o"er in her action for
the cancellation of the patent.
Thus the +irector of Patents e3plained his reasons for the denial of the petition to cancel private respondent=s
patent E 7crutiny of *3hs. 9+9 and 9*9 readily reveals that
"ot one of the various pictorial representations of burners clearly and convincingly show that the device
presented therein is identical or substantially identical in construction with the aforesaid utility model.
)t 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. ,or anticipation to occur, the prior art must show that
each element is found either e3pressly or described or under principles of inherency in a single prior art
reference or that the claimed invention was probably known in a single prior art device or practice.
*ven assuming gratia arguendi that the aforesaid brochures do depict clearly on all fours each and every element of
the patented gas burner device so that the prior art and the said patented 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 indicated and, therefore, they are useless prior art references.
,urthermore, and more significantly, the model marked *3h. 9G9 does not show whether or not it was manufactured
andHor cast before the application for the issuance of patent for the !P: burner was filed by Melecia Madolaria.
Dith respect to *3h. 9!,9 petitioner claimed it to be her own model of !P: burner allegedly manufactured sometime in
1(5% or 1(5< and sold by her in the course of her business operation in the name of ;esco Metal Manufacturing,
which burner was denominated as 9-ansome9 burner
here PAT*"T ,,)6* 7A.7 8 *,t ! /!re+,. e=!m&"!t&o" o+ E=-. 5L5 3o,.# %-o3 t-!t &t #oe% "ot be!r t-e
3or# 5R!"%ome5 which is the burner referred to as the product being sold by the Petitioner. This is "ot t-e 3!1
to pro9e t-!t E=-. 5L5 !"t&/&p!te% Letter% !te"t No. UM6:;<9 t-ro,'- E=-%. 5C5 !"# 5+.9
Another factor working against the Petitioner=s claims is that an e3amination of *3h. 9!9 would disclose that there
is no indication of the time or date it was manufactured.
This ffice, thus has no way of determining whether *3h. 9!9 was really manufactured before the filing of the
aforesaid application which matured into !etters Patent "o. #M$%&'(
*3h. 9M9 which is the alleged b,r"er /,p of an imported 9-ansome9 burner. Again, $$$ there is no date indicated
therein as to when it was manufactured andHor imported before the filing of the application for issuance of patent
of the subFect utility model. Dhat is more, some component parts of *3h. 9M9 are missing, as only the cup was
presented so that the same could not be compared to the utility model 0subFect matter of this case1 which consists
of several other detachable parts in combination to form the complete !P: burner.
": himself admitted during cross$e3amination that he has never been connected with Manila :as 6orporation.
4e could not even present any importation papers relating to the alleged imported ransome burners. "either did
his wife.
-*8 ATENT OFFICE8 The validity of the patent issued by the Philippine Patent ffice in favor of private respondent and the
@uestion over the inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the improved model of the !P: burner !re m!tter% 3-&/- !re
better #eterm&"e# b1 t-e !te"t O++&/e. The technical staff of the Philippine Patent ffice composed of e=pert% &" t-e&r +&e.#
has by the issuance of the patent in @uestion accepted private respondent=s model of gas burner as a discovery. There is a
presumption that the ffice has correctly determined the patentability of the model 8 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 +irector of Patents, especially when affirmed by the 6ourt of Appeals,
are conclusive on this 6ourt when supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds
for a reversal of the findings and conclusions of the Patent ffice and the 6ourt of Appeals.
The alleged failure of the +irector of Patents and the 6ourt of Appeals to accord evidentiary weight to the testimonies
of the witnesses of petitioner showing anticipation is not a Fustification to grant the petition. Pursuant to the re@uirement
of clear and convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption of validity of a patent, it has been held that oral
testimony to show anticipation is open to suspicion and if uncorroborated by cogent evidence, as what occurred in this
case, it may be held insufficient.
It -!% bee" -e.# t-!t t-e 0,e%t&o" o" pr&or&t1 o+ &"9e"t&o" &% o"e o+ +!/t. "ovelty and utility are likewise @uestions
of fact. The validity of patent is decided on the basis of factual in@uiries. Dhether evidence presented comes within the
scope of prior art &% ! +!/t,!. &%%,e to be re%o.9e# b1 t-e !te"t O++&/e. There is @uestion of fact when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the @uery necessarily invites calibration of the
whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, e3istence and relevance of specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation. +*")*+.