GERARDO SAMSON, JR., PETITIONER, VS. FELIPE TARROZA AND DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, RESPONDENTS.

With the statutory recognition of patentability based on the
“practical utility” concept^[1]
thus rendering clear that a patent is not solely to be earned under the
“flash of genius” theory,^[2]
this petition for the cancellation of a utility model patent for a Side
Tilting-Dumping Wheelbarrow granted to respondent Felipe A. Tarroza
was correctly denied by respondent Director of Patents.  Petitioner Gerardo Samson, Jr., himself the
grantee of a utility model patent for a Dumping and Detachable Wheelbarrow,
lacked any legal justification for such a plea. 
So respondent Director ruled.  Not satisfied, petitioner elevated the matter
to us for review.  There is no reason why
a different outcome is to be expected. 
His appeal must fail.

Petitioner was, on May 22, 1958, awarded Utility Model Patent No.
27 for the above type of wheelbarrow which, as noted in the decision,
“consists of a wheeled carriage base and an upper pivoted and detachable
carrying tray.  The carriage base is
comprised of a wheel and two equal lengths of continuous pipes bent to provide
wheel forks at the front and at the rear to support the back portion of the
tray, with the ends of the pipes being adopted as the carrying handles for the
wheelbarrow.  The two pipes thus bent are
joined together by cross braces in the front and at the rear.  The tray is removably
pivoted at its front end through hook catches at its bottom corners, to the
forward cross brace, and its rear end rests solidly over the rear portion of
the legs.  To dump the load the user
pulls a dumping handle at the back end to cause the tray to pivot upwardly
about the front brace to a position of about 45 degrees with the horizontal and
with its front end panel being supported by the wheel.”^[3]

Respondent’s Side
Tilting-Dumping Wheelbarrow, on the other hand, consists “of a wheeled
carriage made of tubular frames essentially as in petitioner’s.  Welded transversely to the parallel
frames are two brackets provided with holes designed to complement similar
holes on brackets provided on the tray. 
The brackets on the tray are so placed that with the provision of a bolt
through the openings the tray may be tilted approximately 170 degrees to the
left or to the right of the wheelbarrow with its axis running longitudinally
through the center of the bottom face of the tray.”^[4]

There is an express recognition under the Patent Law, as already
noted, that any new model of implements or tools or of any industrial product
even if not possessed of the quality of invention but which is of
“practical utility” is entitled to a “patent for a utility
model.” From the above description of the side tilting-dumping
wheelbarrow, the product of respondent’s ingenuity and industry, it is quite apparent that it has a place in the market
and possesses what the statute refers to as “practical utility.” The
requirement explicitly set forth in the statute has thus been met.  Respondent Tarroza
is entitled to its benefits.  The grant
to him of a patent for a utility model is in accordance with law.  There was no reason, therefore, for its
cancellation.  So it was held by the
Director of Patents.  That decision as
already noted should stand.

Moreover, in appeals from
a decision of the Director of Patents, only questions of law may be reviewed,
findings of facts being conclusive unless unsupported by substantial
evidence.  So it was decided in Che v. Philippines Patent Office.^[5] As was emphasized in Bagano v. Director of Patents:  “It is almost trite to state here that
in cases of the nature as the one at bar, only questions of law are to be
raised in order that this Court could exercise its appellate jurisdiction and
review the decision.”^[6] The above well-settled doctrines suffice to
demonstrate that this petition for review, as noted at the outset, is without
merit.  It was not error then, to
reiterate, for the respondent Director of Patents to deny the cancellation of
the utility patent granted respondent Tarroza.  To borrow from the language of the Che opinion: 
“Even on the sole issue alone, the petition for review must
fail.”

Another alleged error was
imputed to respondent Director of Patents. 
It would find fault with his failing to hold that respondent Tarroza “was not the true and actual” author of
the mechanical contrivance for which he was granted a utility model
patent.  This is what the appealed
decision has to say on this point: 
“Petitioner’s theory with respect to the second ground for
cancellation, to wit:  that respondent is
not the true and actual inventor or designer of the utility model is premised
on the fact that because of the proximity of the two, the petitioner and the
respondent being brothers-in-law, and living in adjoining residential lots, the
latter has had ample time and opportunity to observe and copy the former’s wheelbarrow. 
But the testimonial evidence thus presented is not clear, satisfactory,
and free from doubt, in the face of allegations to the contrary by the
respondent.”^[7] The futility of such an assignment of error
is thus apparent.  Again, it is factual
in character.  It is not for us, as noted
above, to review or revise the same, there being no showing of a lack of
substantial evidence in support thereof.

WHEREFORE, the decision of April 13, 1962 of respondent
Director of Patents denying the petition for the cancellation of Utility Model
Letters Patent No. 62 in favor of respondent Tarroza
is hereby affirmed.  With
costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, Teehankee
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Section 55 of Republic Act No. 165, as amended by Republic Act No. 864, reads
thus:  “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 in so far as they are applicable, except as
otherwise herein provided.” (1953)

^[2]
Cf.  “That
is to say the new device, however useful it may be, must reveal the flash of
creative genius not merely the skill of the calling.  If it fails, it has not established its right
to a private grant on the public domain.” Cuno Engineering Corp. v.
Automatic Devices Corp., 314 US 84,
91 (1941).

^[3]
Decision of the Director of Patents, Brief for the Petitioner-Appellant, pp.
20-21.

^[4]
Ibid, p. 21.

^[5]
L-18337, Jan. 30, 1965.

^[6]
L-20170, Aug. 10, 1965.

^[7]
Decision of the Director of Patents, Brief for the Petitioner-Appellant, pp.
32-33.