Joaquin Jr. vs. Drilon, 302 SCRA 225 (1999)/G.R. No.

108946, January 28, 1999

Facts:
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder / grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. M922, dated January 28,
1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977.
On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright
specifying the shows format and style of presentation.
Upon complaint of petitioners, information for violation of PD No. 49 was filed against private respondent FRANKLIN
DRILON GABRIEL ZOSA together with certain officers of RPN 9 for airing Its a Date. It was assigned to Branch 104 of
RTC Quezon City.
Zosa sought review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.
On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed the Assistant City Prosecutors
findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents.
Petitioner Joaquin filed motion for reconsideration but such was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the format or mechanics or petitioners television show is entitled to copyright protection.
Ruling:
No. The format of the show is not copyrightable. Sec. 2 of PD No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on Intellectual
Property, enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection. The provision is substantially the same as
Sec. 172 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293). The format or mechanics of a television show
is not included in the list of protected works in Sec. 2 of PD No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law
cannot be extended to cover them.
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new independent right granted by the
statute and not simply a pre-existing right regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such
as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the person and on
terms and conditions specified in the statute.
The Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPIs copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda
and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in PD 49.
The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show.
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient; the presentation of the
master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of a probable cause.
A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and
effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general
copyright / format of both dating game shows.

Twentieth Century Music Corp. vs. Aiken U.S. 151 (1975) 422 U.S. 151
Facts:
On March 11, 1972, 2 copyrighted songs of petitioner Twentieth Century Music Corporation were received on the radio
in respondent George Aikens food shop (George Aikens Chicken) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PA) from a local
broadcasting station, which was licensed by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers to perform
the songs, but Aiken had no such license. Petitioner Twentieth Century Music Corp. owns the copyright on one of these
songs, "The More I See You"; petitioner Mary Bourne the copyright on the other, "Me and My Shadow." Twentieth
Century Music then sued Aiken for copyright infringement. The District Court granted awards, but the Court of Appeals
reversed.
Issue:
Whether or not the reception of a radio broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition can constitute copyright
infringement when the copyright owner has licensed the broadcaster to perform the composition publicly for profit
Ruling:
No. Aiken did not infringe upon Twentieth Centurys exclusive right, under the Copyright Act, "to perform the
copyrighted work publicly for profit," since the radio reception did not constitute a "performance" of the copyrighted
songs. To hold that Aiken "performed" the copyrighted works would obviously result in a wholly unenforceable regime
of copyright law, and would also be highly inequitable, since (short of keeping his radio turned off) one in Aiken's
position would be unable to protect himself from infringement liability. Such a ruling, moreover, would authorize the
sale of an untold number of licenses for what is basically a single rendition of a copyrighted work, thus conflicting with
the balanced purpose of the Copyright Act of assuring the composer an adequate return for the value of his
composition while, at the same time, protecting the public from oppressive monopolies. The limited scope of the
copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private
motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other
arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an "author's" creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. "The sole interest of the
United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly," this Court has said, "lie in the general benefits
derived by the public from the labors of authors." When technological change has rendered its literal terms
ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose.

Columbia Pictures vs. Court of Appeals 261 SCRA 144 (1996)

Facts:
Complainants COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ORION PICTURES CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.,
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, and WARNER BROTHERS, INC., thru counsel lodged a formal complaint with the National
Bureau of Investigation for violation of PD No. 49, (otherwise known as the Decree on the Protection of Intellectual
Property) as amended, and sought its assistance in their anti-film piracy drive. Agents of the NBI and private
researchers made discreet surveillance on various video establishments in Metro Manila including Sunshine Home
Video Inc. (Sunshine for brevity), owned and operated by Danilo A. Pelindario with address at No. 6 Mayfair Center,
Magallanes, Makati, Metro Manila.
On November 14, 1987, NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes applied for a search warrant with the court a quo against
Sunshine seeking the seizure, among others, of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films all of which were enumerated
in a list attached to the application; and, television sets, video cassettes and/or laser disc recordings equipment and
other machines and paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, reproduction, sale,
lease or disposition of videograms tapes in the premises above described. In the hearing of the application, NBI Senior
Agent Lauro C. Reyes, upon questions by the court a quo, reiterated in substance his averments in his affidavit. His
testimony was corroborated by another witness, Mr. Rene C. Baltazar. Atty. Rico V. Domingos deposition was also
taken. On the basis of the affidavits and depositions of NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, Rene C. Baltazar and Atty.
Rico V. Domingo, Search Warrant No 87-053 for violation of Section 56 of PD No. 49, as amended, was issued by the
court a quo.
The search warrant was served at about 1:45 p.m. on December 14, 1987 to Sunshine and/or their representatives.
In the course of the search of the premises indicated in the search warrant, the NBI Agents found and seized various
video tapes of duly copyrighted motion pictures/films owned or exclusively distributed by private complainants, and
machines, equipment, television sets, paraphernalia, materials, accessories all of which were included in the receipt
for properties accomplished by the raiding team. Copy of the receipt was furnished and/or tendered to Mr. Danilo A.
Pelindario, registered owner-proprietor of Sunshine Home Video.
On December 16, 1987, a Return of Search Warrant was filed with the Court.
A Motion To Lift the Order of Search Warrant was filed but was later denied for lack of merit.
A Motion for reconsideration of the Order of denial was filed. The court a quo granted the said motion for
reconsideration and justified it in this manner:
It is undisputed that the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copies (sic),
were never presented in the proceedings for the issuance of the search warrants in question. The orders of the Court
granting the search warrants and denying the urgent motion to lift order of search warrants were, therefore, issued in
error. Consequently, they must be set aside.
Petitioners thereafter appealed the order of the trial court granting private respondents motion for reconsideration,
thus lifting the search warrant which it had therefore issued, to the Court of Appeals. As stated at the outset, said
appeal was dismissed and the motion for reconsideration thereof was denied. Hence, this petition was brought to this
Court particularly challenging the validity of respondent courts retroactive application of the ruling in 20th Century Fox
Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., in dismissing petitioners appeal and upholding the quashal of the search
warrant by the trial court.
Issue:
Whether or not the films in question which were never registered in the National Library are protected by PD 49
Ruling:
Yes. PD 49 as amended, does not require registration and deposit for a creator to be able to file an action for
infringement of his rights. These conditions are merely pre-requisites to an action for damages. So, as long as the
proscribed acts are shown to exist, an action for infringement may be initiated.
Accordingly, the certifications from the Copyright Section of the National Library, presented as evidence by private
respondents to show non-registration of some of the films of petitioners, assume no evidentiary weight or significance,
whatsoever.
Furthermore, a closer review of Presidential Decree No. 49 reveals that even with respect to works which are required
under Section 26 thereof to be registered and with copies to be deposited with the National Library, such as books,
including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories and gazetteers; and periodicals, including
pamphlets and newspapers; lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery; and letters, the
failure to comply with said requirements does not deprive the copyright owner of the right to sue for infringement.
Such non-compliance merely limits the remedies available to him and subjects him to the corresponding sanction.
The reason for this is expressed in Section 2 of the decree which prefaces its enumeration of copyrightable works with
the explicit statement that the rights granted under this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with
respect to any of the following classes of works. This means that under the present state of the law, the copyright for
a work is acquired by an intellectual creator from the moment of creation even in the absence of registration and
deposit. As has been authoritatively clarified:
The registration and deposit of two complete copies or reproductions of the work with the National Library within three
weeks after the first public dissemination or performance of the work, as provided for in Section 26 (P.D. No. 49, as
amended), is not for the purpose of securing a copyright of the work, but rather to avoid the penalty for noncompliance of the deposit of said two copies and in order to recover damages in an infringement suit.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Philippines Multi-Media System Inc., et al., G.R. No. 175769,
January 19, 2009

Facts:
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is licensed under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines to engage
in television and radio broadcasting. It broadcasts television programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby
provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through Channel 2 on Very High Frequency (VHF) and Channel 23 on
Ultra High Frequency (UHF). The programs aired over Channels 2 and 23 are either produced by ABS-CBN or
purchased from or licensed by other producers.
ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern their programming in accordance with perceived
demands of the region. Thus, television programs shown in Metro Manila and nearby provinces are not necessarily
shown in other provinces.
Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) is the operator of Dream Broadcasting System. It delivers digital direct-tohome (DTH) television via satellite to its subscribers all over the Philippines.
PMSI was granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 86305 on May 7, 1998 and was given a Provisional
Authority by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) on February 1, 2000 to install, operate and maintain
a nationwide DTH satellite service. When it commenced operations, it offered as part of its program line-up ABS-CBN
Channels 2 and 23, NBN, Channel 4, ABC Channel 5, GMA Channel 7, RPN Channel 9, and IBC Channel 13, together
with other paid premium program channels.
However, on April 25, 2001, ABS-CBN demanded for PMSI to cease and desist from rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
On April 27, 2001, PMSI replied that the rebroadcasting was in accordance with the authority granted it by NTC and its
obligation under NTC Memorandum Circular No. 4-08-88, Section 6.2 of which requires all cable television system
operators operating in a community within Grade A or B contours to carry the television signals of the authorized
television broadcast stations.
Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties in an effort to reach a settlement; however, the negotiations were
terminated on April 4, 2002 by ABS-CBN allegedly due to PMSIs inability to ensure the prevention of illegal
retransmission and further rebroadcast of its signals, as well as the adverse effect of the rebroadcasts on the business
operations of its regional television stations.
On May 13, 2002, ABS-CBN filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) a complaint for Violation of Laws
Involving Property Rights, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction,.
It alleged that PMSIs unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting rights and
copyright. On July 2, 2002, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO granted ABS-CBNs application for a
temporary restraining order. On July 12, 2002, PMSI suspended its retransmission of Channels 2 and 23.
Issue:
Whether or not PMSIs unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is an infringement of its broadcasting rights
and copyright under the Intellectual Property Code
Ruling:
PMSI did not infringe on ABS-CBNs intellectual property rights under the IP Code.
Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as the transmission by wireless means for the public reception of
sounds or of images or of representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also broadcasting where the
means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.
On the other hand, rebroadcasting as defined in Article 3(g) of the International Convention for the Protection of
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, otherwise known as the 1961 Rome
Convention, of which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory, is the simultaneous broadcasting by one
broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.
PMSI would not qualify as a broadcasting organization because it does not have the aforementioned responsibilities
imposed upon broadcasting organizations, such as ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own signals; PMSI merely carries such signals which the viewers receive in its
unaltered form. PMSI does not produce, select, or determine the programs to be shown in Channels 2 and 23.
Likewise, it does not pass itself off as the origin or author of such programs. Insofar as Channels 2 and 23 are
concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in accordance with Memorandum Circular 04-08-88. With regard to its
premium channels, it buys the channels from content providers and transmits on an as-is basis to its viewers. Clearly,
PMSI does not perform the functions of a broadcasting organization; thus, it cannot be said that it is engaged in
rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
The retransmission of ABS-CBNs signals by PMSI which functions essentially as a cable television does not
therefore constitute rebroadcasting in violation of the formers intellectual property rights under the IP Code.

Pacita I. Habana, et al. vs. Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading, G.R. No. 131522, July 19,
1999
Facts:
Habana is the author of the copyrighted book entitled College English for Today (CET). Robles and GoodWill is the
author and publisher of the book entitled Developing English Proficiency (DEP).
When Habana et al. try to revise their work they encountered by chance that the work of Robles (DEP) is similar of the
contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book.
After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books (CET and DEP), Habana found that several pages of
the Robles book are similar, if not all together a copy of Habanas book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright
infringement.

Habana then made demands for damages against respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist from
further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of Robles works.
However, Robles ignored the demands, hence, Habana et al. filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for
Infringement and/or unfair competition with damages against private respondents.
Issue:
Whether or not, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, Robles
committed no copyright infringement
Ruling:
No, Robles still committed copyright infringement.
Robles act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners copyrights.
In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an injurious effect.
Here, the injury consists in that Robles lifted from Habanas book materials that were the result of the latters research
work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did
not acknowledge Habana as her source.
Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that Robles committed. Habanas
work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her own is
injury enough. In copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. This is
precisely what the law on copyright protected, under Section 184.1 (b). Quotations from a published work if they are
compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles
and periodicals in the form of press summaries are allowed provided that the source and the name of the author, if
appearing on the work, are mentioned.

NBI Microsoft Corp. vs. Hwang, et al., G.R. No. 147043, June 21, 2005
Facts:
Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), a Delaware, United States corporation, owns the copyright and trademark
to several computer software. Respondents Benito Keh and Yvonne Keh are the President/Managing Director and
General Manager, respectively, of respondent Beltron Computer Philippines, Inc. (Beltron), a domestic corporation.
Respondents Jonathan K. Chua, Emily K. Chua, Benito T. Sanchez, and Nancy I. Velasco are Beltrons Directors. On the
other hand, respondents Alfonso Chua, Alberto Chua, Judy K. Chua Hwang, Sophia Ong, and Deanna Chua are the
Directors of respondent Taiwan Machinery Display & Trade Center, Inc. (TMTC), also a domestic corporation.
In May 1993, Microsoft and Beltron entered into a Licensing Agreement ("Agreement"). Under Section 2(a) of the
Agreement, as amended in January 1994, Microsoft authorized Beltron, for a fee, to:
(1) reproduce and install no more than one (1) copy of Microsoft software on each Customer System hard disk or
Read Only Memory ("ROM")
(2) distribute directly or indirectly and license copies of the Product in object code form to end users
The Agreement also authorized Microsoft and Beltron to terminate the contract if the other fails to comply with any of
the Agreements provisions. Microsoft terminated the Agreement effective 22 June 1995 for Beltrons non-payment of
royalties.
Afterwards, Microsoft learned that Beltron were illegally copying and selling Microsoft software. Consequently,
Microsoft, through its Philippine agent, hired the services of Pinkerton Consulting Services ("PCS"), a private
investigative firm. Microsoft also sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI").
On 10 November 1995, a PCS employee and an NBI agent posing as representatives of a computer shop, bought
computer hardware (central processing unit ("CPU") and computer monitor) and software (12 computer disks ("CDs")
in read-only memory ("ROM") format) from Beltron. The CPU contained pre-installed Microsoft Windows 3.1 and MSDOS software. The 12 CD-ROMs, encased in plastic containers with Microsoft packaging, also contained Microsoft
software. At least two of the CD-ROMs were "installers," so-called because they contain several software (Microsoft
only or both Microsoft and non-Microsoft). The PCS employee and the NBI agent were not given the Microsoft enduser license agreements, users manuals, registration cards or certificates of authenticity for the articles they
purchased. The receipt issued to them for the CPU and monitor bore the heading "T.M.T.C. (PHILS.) INC. BELTRON
COMPUTER."
The NBI searched the premises of Beltron and TMTC and seized several computer-related hardware, software,
accessories, and paraphernalia based on the search warrant applied by Microsoft.
Based on the articles obtained from Beltron and TMC, Microsoft and a certain Lotus Development Corporation ("Lotus
Corporation") charged Beltron and TMC before the Department of Justice ("DOJ") with copyright infringement under
Section 5(A) in relation to Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 49, as amended, ("PD 49") and with unfair
competition under Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Microsoft alleged that respondents illegally copied and
sold Microsoft software.
Issue:
Whether or not Beltron and TMC are liable for copyright infringement and unfair competition
Ruling:
The gravamen of copyright infringement is not merely the unauthorized "manufacturing" of intellectual works but
rather the unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered by Section 5. Hence, any person who performs any of

the acts under Section 5 without obtaining the copyright owners prior consent renders himself civilly and criminally
liable for copyright infringement.
Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and,
therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection,
consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do
which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.
Significantly, under Section 5(A), a copyright owner is vested with the exclusive right to "copy, distribute, multiply,
[and] sell" his intellectual works.
The elements of unfair competition under Article 189(1)43 of the Revised Penal Code are:
(a) That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer;
(b)
(b) That the general appearance is shown in the:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

goods themselves, or in the

wrapping of their packages, or in the
device or words therein, or in
any other feature of their appearance

(c) That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same
with a like purpose[; and]
(d) That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.