Moslares, Cherie Lyn D.

Administrative Law, Election Law, and Law on Public Officers

Thursday 7:00-9:00 PM/ Friday 8:00-9:00 PM

Topic: Due Process; Administrative Bodies

Title: American Tobacco Company vs Director of Patents
Citation: 67 SCRA 287

FACTS:
The American Tobacco Company (ACT) was a party to a trademark
case pending before the Philippine Patent Office. ATC challenged the
validity of Rule 168 of the “Revised Rules of Practice before the
Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases” as amended, authorizing
the Director of Patents to designate any ranking official of said office to
hear “inter partes” proceedings.

ATC argued that the same set of Rules provides that “all judgments
determining the merits of the case shall be personally and directly
prepared by the Director and signed by him” hence it is improper for
the director to designate a lower ranking official as hearing officers to
hear the case; that it is clear that under the Rules, the Director must
personally hear the case otherwise, there will be a violation of due
process.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the designation of hearing officers other than the
Director of Patents is a violation of due process.

HELD:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the power to decide resides solely in
the administrative agency vested by law, this does not preclude a
delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the
decision of the administrative agency will be made. The rule that
requires an administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and
discretion does not preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of practical
administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates to investigate and
report to him the facts, on the basis of which the officer makes his
decisions. It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally
exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. Neither does due
process of law nor the requirements of fair hearing require that the
actual taking of testimony be before the same officer who will make
the decision in the case. As long as a party is not deprived of his right
to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, and
the decision is supported by the evidence in the record, there is no
question that the requirements of due process and fair trial are fully
met. In short, there is no abnegation of responsibility on the part of
the officer concerned as the actual decision remains with and is made
by said officer. It is, however, required that to “give the substance of
a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon
evidence the officer who makes the determinations must consider and
appraise the evidence which justifies them.