Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
ASSOCIATION
OF THE
represented
by its President, Present:
MANUEL
J. CHAVEZ,
Petitioner, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
(Chairperson)
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CALLEJO,
SR.,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
NACHURA,
JJ.
FERTILIZER
AND PESTICIDE
AUTHORITY
(FPA), SECRETARY
OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE,
FPA OFFICER-
IN-CHARGE
CESAR M. DRILON,
AND
FPA DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DARIO
C. SALUBARSE,
Respondents. Promulgated:
February
21, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
This
resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to set aside the
Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90
(RTC) dated
The case
commenced upon petitioner’s filing of a Petition For Declaratory Relief With
Prayer For Issuance Of A Writ Of Preliminary Injunction And/Or Temporary
Restraining Order with the RTC on
3.12 Protection of Proprietary Data
Data
submitted to support the first full or conditional registration of a pesticide
active ingredient in the
Pesticides granted provisional registration under P.D. 1144 will be considered first registered in 1977, the date of the Decree.
Pesticide
products in which data is still under protection shall be referred to as
proprietary pesticides, and all others as commodity pesticides. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner
argued that the specific provision on the protection of the proprietary data in
FPA’s Pesticide Regulatory Policies and Implementing
Guidelines is unlawful for going counter to the objectives of Presidential
Decree No. 1144 (P.D. No. 1144); for exceeding the limits of delegated
authority; and for encroaching on the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Intellectual Property Office.
On
Dissatisfied with the RTC Decision, petitioner resorted to filing this petition for review on certiorari where the following issues are raised:
I
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT FPA HAS ACTED BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF ITS DELEGATED POWER WHEN IT GRANTED A SEVEN-YEAR PROPRIETARY
PROTECTION TO DATA SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE FIRST FULL OR CONDITIONAL
REGISTRATION OF A PESTICIDE INGREDIENT IN THE PHILIPPINES;
II
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT FPA IS ENCROACHING ON THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (IPO) WHEN IT
INCLUDED IN ITS PESTICIDE REGULATORY POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES THE SUBJECT
SEVEN-YEAR PROPRIETARY DATA PROTECTION;
III
WHETHER OR NOT SAID PROPRIETARY DATA PROTECTION IS AN
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF FREE TRADE;
IV
WHETHER OR NOT SAID PROPRIETARY DATA PROTECTION RUNS
COUNTER TO THE OBJECTIVES OF P.D. NO. 1144;
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
CITY, BRANCH 90, COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF
SECTION 3.12 OF THE PESTICIDE REGULATORY POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT FPA.
Respondents,
on the other hand, maintain that the provision on the protection of proprietary
data in the FPA's Pesticide Regulatory Policies and
Implementing Guidelines is valid and legal as it does not violate the
objectives of P.D. No. 1144; the proprietary data are a substantial asset which
must be protected; the protection for a limited number of years does not
constitute unlawful restraint of free trade; and such provision does not
encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Office.
Respondents
expound that since under P.D. No. 1144, the FPA is mandated to regulate,
control and develop the pesticide industry, it was necessary to provide for
such protection of proprietary data, otherwise, pesticide handlers will
proliferate to the the detriment of the industry and
the public since the inherent toxicity of pesticides are hazardous and are
potential environmental contaminants.
They also
pointed out that the protection under the assailed Pesticide Regulatory
Policies and Implementing Guidelines is warranted, considering that the
development of proprietary data involves an investment of many years and large
sums of money, thus, the data generated by an applicant in support of his
application for registration are owned and proprietary to him. Moreover, since the protection accorded to
the proprietary data is limited in time, then such protection is reasonable and
does not constitute unlawful restraint of trade.
Lastly,
respondents emphasize that the provision on protection of proprietary data does
not usurp the functions of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) since a
patent and data protection are two different matters. A patent prohibits all unlicensed making,
using and selling of a particular product, while data protection accorded by
the FPA merely prevents copying or unauthorized use of an applicant's data, but
any other party may independently generate and use his own data. It is further argued that under Republic Act
No. 8293 (R.A. No. 8293), the grant of power to the IPO to administer and
implement State policies on intellectual property is not exclusionary as the
IPO is even allowed to coordinate with other government agencies to formulate
and implement plans and policies to strengthen the protection of intellectual
property rights.
The
petition is devoid of merit.
The law
being implemented by the assailed Pesticide Regulatory Policies and
Implementing Guidelines is P.D. No. 1144, entitled Creating the Fertilizer
and Pesticide Authority and Abolishing the Fertilizer Industry Authority. As stated in the Preamble of said decree,
“there is an urgent need to create a technically-oriented government authority
equipped with the required expertise to regulate, control and develop both
the fertilizer and the pesticide industries.” (Underscoring supplied) The
decree further provided as follows:
Section 6. Powers and Functions. The FPA shall have jurisdiction, over all existing handlers of pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural chemical inputs. The FPA shall have the following powers and functions:
I.
Common to Fertilizers, Pesticides and other
Agricultural Chemicals
x x x
4. To promulgate rules and regulations for the registration and licensing of handlers of these products, collect fees pertaining thereto, as well as the renewal, suspension, revocation, or cancellation of such registration or licenses and such other rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this Decree;
x x x
Section 7. Power to Issue Rules and Regulations to Implement Decree. The FPA is hereby authorized to issue or promulgate rules and regulations to implement, and carry out the purposes and provisions of this Decree.
Did the FPA go beyond its delegated
power and undermine the objectives of P.D. No. 1144 by issuing regulations that
provide for protection of proprietary data?
The answer is in the negative.
Under P.D. No. 1144, the FPA is given
the broad power to issue rules and regulations to implement and carry out the
purposes and provisions of said decree, i.e., to regulate, control and develop
the pesticide industry. In furtherance of such ends, the FPA sees the
protection of proprietary data as one way of fulfilling its mandate. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[4]
the Court emphasized that:
x x x [t]he interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement a statute is generally accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. The reason behind this rule was explained in Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals in this wise:
The rationale
for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a
modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative
agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the
accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the
administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute. In Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. vs.
Commissioner of Customs, the Court stressed that executive officials are
presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the considerations pertinent
to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed an independent,
conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon. The courts give much weight to the government
agency officials charged with the implementation of the law, their competence,
expertness, experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they frequently
are the drafters of the law they interpret.”
x x x.[5] [Emphasis supplied]
Verily, in this case, the Court acknowledges the experience and expertise of FPA officials who are best qualified to formulate ways and means of ensuring the quality and quantity of pesticides and handlers thereof that should enter the Philippine market, such as giving limited protection to proprietary data submitted by applicants for registration. The Court ascribes great value and will not disturb the FPA's determination that one way of attaining the purposes of its charter is by granting such protection, specially where there is nothing on record which shows that said administrative agency went beyond its delegated powers.
Moreover, petitioner has not succeeded in convincing the Court that the provision in question has legal infirmities.
There is no encroachment
upon the powers of the IPO granted under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines.
Section 5 thereof enumerates the functions of the IPO. Nowhere in said provision does it state nor
can it be inferred that the law intended the IPO to have the exclusive authority
to protect or promote intellectual property rights in the
There is also no evidence whatsoever to support petitioner's allegation that the grant of protection to proprietary data would result in restraining free trade. Petitioner did not adduce any reliable data to prove its bare allegation that the protection of proprietary data would unduly restrict trade on pesticides. Furthermore, as held in Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut Authority,[6] despite the fact that “our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare.” There can be no question that the unregulated use or proliferation of pesticides would be hazardous to our environment. Thus, in the aforecited case, the Court declared that “free enterprise does not call for removal of ‘protective regulations’.”[7] More recently, in Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,[8] the Court held that “[t]he mere fact that incentives and privileges are granted to certain enterprises to the exclusion of others does not render the issuance unconstitutional for espousing unfair competition.” It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.
In sum, the assailed provision in the 1987 Pesticide Regulatory Policies and Implementing Guidelines granting protection to proprietary data is well within the authority of the FPA to issue so as to carry out its purpose of controlling, regulating and developing the pesticide industry.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, in SP. Civil Case No. Q-01-42790 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROMEO
J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice