Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs.

Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority

G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007

Facts
The case commenced upon PMAP’s filing of a Petition For Declaratory Relief
Injunction And/Or Temporary Restraining Order with the RTC on January
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, is an association
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). It questioned the validity of Section
Implementing Guidelines, which provides thus:
With Prayer For Issuance Of A Writ Of Preliminary
4, 2002. Petitioner, a non-stock corporation duly
of pesticide handlers duly licensed by respondent
3.12 of the 1987 Pesticide Regulatory Policies and

3.12 Protection of Proprietary Data

Data submitted to support the first full or conditional registration of a pesticide active ingredient in the Philippines will be granted
proprietary protection for a period of seven years from the date of such registration. During this period subsequent registrants may
rely on these data only with third party authorization or otherwise must submit their own data. After this period, all data may be
freely cited in support of registration by any applicant, provided convincing proof is submitted that the product being registered is
identical or substantially similar to any current registered pesticide, or differs only in ways that would not significantly increase the
risk of unreasonable adverse effects.

Issues
Whether or not FPA encroach upon the jurisdiction of the
Intellectual Property Office?

Held
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
Philippines. On the contrary, paragraph (g) of said Section even provides that the IPO shall "[c]oordinate with other government
agencies and the private sector efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen the protection of intellectual
property rights in the country." Clearly, R.A. No. 8293 recognizes that efforts to fully protect intellectual property rights cannot be
undertaken by the IPO alone. Other agencies dealing with intellectual property rights are, therefore, not precluded from issuing
policies, guidelines and regulations to give protection to such rights.

Lastly, FPA 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.