G.R. No. 203697 - Interphil Laboratories, Inc. vs. OEP Philippines, Inc.

The case involves the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Pest Management Association of the Philippines (PMAP), represented by its President, Manuel J. Chavez, challenging the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90.
The petition was initially filed as a Petition for Declaratory Relief with a Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order on January 4, 2002.

Petitioner questioned the validity of Section 3.12 of the 1987 Pesticide Regulatory Policies and Implementing Guidelines issued by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA).
Section 3.12 provides that data submitted in support of the first full or conditional registration of a pesticide active ingredient in the Philippines is granted proprietary protection for a period of seven years from the date of registration.
It was emphasized that during the protection period, subsequent registrants must obtain third party authorization or submit their own data. After seven years, the data may be freely cited provided that sufficient proof is presented regarding product similarity or minimal risk of adverse effects.
The classification of pesticides into “proprietary” (with protection) and “commodity” (without protection) was also a matter of contention.

Went counter to the objectives of Presidential Decree No. 1144.
Exceeded the limits of the authority delegated to the FPA.
Encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).

The petitioner implied the provision could result in potential restraints on free trade due to undue protection.

Respondents, including the FPA and its officials, maintained that the data protection measure was:

Within the FPA’s broad authority to regulate, control, and develop the pesticide industry as granted under P.D. No. 1144.
Necessary to avoid the proliferation of unregulated pesticide handlers, which could be hazardous to public health and the environment.

The protection of proprietary data is a limited, reasonable measure that does not stand as an unlawful restraint on trade.
The measure does not usurp the functions of the IPO since data protection and patent rights are distinct concepts.
The investment in generating proprietary data merits its protection for a limited period.
Under R.A. No. 8293, the IPO is even mandated to coordinate with other government agencies, thereby supporting the FPA’s actions.

On November 5, 2002, the RTC dismissed the petition for declaratory relief on the ground that the FPA was acting within its delegated authority.
Dissatisfied with the RTC decision, PMAP elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the FPA acted beyond the scope of its delegated power by granting a seven-year proprietary protection to data submitted in support of the first registration of a pesticide ingredient.
Whether the FPA encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Office by including the seven-year protection in its guidelines.
Whether the proprietary data protection provision constitutes an unlawful restraint of free trade.
Whether the said proprietary data protection runs counter to the objectives of P.D. No. 1144.
Whether the RTC committed reversible error in upholding the validity of Section 3.12 of the 1987 Pesticide Regulatory Policies and Implementing Guidelines.