Domalsin v.

Valenciano
Facts:
The property subject of this action for forcible entry is a parcel of land at Sitio Riverside, Benguet.
Domalsin claims to be the lawful owner and possessor of the land for 19 yearshe declared it for
taxation purposes and allegedly introduced improvements
1998the Sps. Valenciano entered the premise to construct a building without the consent of
Domalsin and without a building permit from the DPWH. Domalsin protested and demanded that
the Sps. Valenciano halt construction but they refused
The Spouses claimed that the on-going construction was with the consent of the DPWH and in fact
the improvements found in the property were introduced by the residents thereof, including its first
residents, William and Gloria Banuca, and not by Domalsin
Domalsin testified that he is a lawyer-businessman formerly engaged in a trucking business,
hauling sand and gravel
o While he was passing Kennon Road, he discovered that a portion of the Bued River can be
a potential source of supplies for his business
o He scouted a place where he can construct a road from Kennon Road to the Bued River
In the course of cleaning the area, his (Domalsin) workers notice that the place had been tilled
o A certain Castillo Binay-an appeared informing him that he was the occupant of the site of
the proposed private road
o After agreeing on the consideration, the former executed a Deed over the land in
Domalsins favor
o Thereafter, Domalsin then obtained the necessary permits to extract the construction
materials
Other than construction of the road, Domalsin constructed 2 houses:
o The first was located along the road-right of-way of Kennon Road
Used for sleeping quarters and resting center for laborers
o The second was located below the private road few meters down from Kennon Road
Used as petitioners quarters
Domalsin hired William Banuca who applied as a foreman
o Due to the nature of Williams job, he was allowed to stay in the second house beside the
private road
o William now lives permanently in the said house after petitioner gave it to him
o Petitioner revealed that the houses his former laborers constructed were awarded to them
as a kind gesture
As to the land he occupied along Kennnon Road where the first house was built, he claims that it
still belongs to him
o This land which housed his laborers and drivers, was cannibalized and leveled, and
the land over which it once stood was taken possession by respondent Spouses who
are now building their house thereon
Gloria Banuca said that it was she who invited the other respondents to come and reside there
o She said that Domalsin abandoned the lot as he stopped working on it and never
returned
o She claimed that after an earthquake, the private road constructed by Domalsin
became impassable and it was she who hired the equipment used to clear the same
 MCTC Ruling:
o The MCTC found that what is being contested is the possession of a portion of the road-
right-of-way of Kennon Road which is located in front of a parcel of land that Domalsin
bought from Castillo Binay-an
o It ruled that although the house was not reconstructed after the earthquake, it was not
tantamount to abandonment because it was destroyed by a fortuitous event
o The respondents who came later after the earthquake must recongnize his possession over
the land
o However, it ruled that the respondents were in good faith considering that their occupation
was with the assurance of the seller, Gloria, and that there were armed with the DPWH
permit
The Spouses then appealed to the RTC. This was DENIED
o Even after the Domalsins business ceased operation, he religiously paid the taxes due
thereon
o Gloria knew fully well that Domalsin has prior possession of the property
o Gloria is clearly in bad faith. If the Banucas are in bad faith, then the Spouses cannot have
better rights either
The Banucas transferred nothing to them
o Defendant-appellants CANNOT even be considered builders in good faith
The Spouses were prohibited by Domalsin from going further but they ignored it.
They shall lose what was built
o Notwithstanding the fact of leveling without the knowledge of Domalsin, the same did not
affect his possession
CA REVERSED the MCTC and RTC decision
o The CA emphasized that the subject of the deed of quitclaim and waiver by Castillo Binay-
an was not the road-right of-way, but the sloping terrain below it
This was the property acquired by Domalsin to have access to the sand and gravel
on the Bued River. It did not include the road-right-of-way
o However, the subject land of the contention of the parties is the ROAD-RIGHT-OF-WAYa
land belonging to the public dominion
Neither of the two parties can be the owners, only possessors of the subject property
Beyond these two, only the government has a better right to the subject property
which right it may exercise any time
If either party has possessory rights to the subject property, it is not
predicated on ownership but only on their actual possession of the subject
property
o The CA held that it is immaterial whether or not there was abandonment by Domalsin. The
fact remains that Gloria took possession of the subject property soon after the earthquake.
She leveled the mound and ruins of Domalsins house, yet the latter remained silent
Domalsin only objected after the Spouses started construction of the house on
the subject property. Respondent cannot now impose an action for forcible
entry against the Spouses

Issue:
 1. Whether the CA erred in holding that Domalsin abandoned the propertyYes
2. Whether the CA erred in reversing the decision of the MCTC and RTC. Yes, but still the true
owner of the subject property is the State, the land being part of the public dominion

Held:
The MCTC, RTC and the CA erred in declaring that Domalsin and the Spouses to be entitled to the
possession of the land in dispute
The parties should not be permitted to take possession of the land, much more, claim ownership
thereof as said lot is part of the public dominion
In the case at bar, since the subject property is a road-right-of-way, it forms part of the public
dominionit is not susceptible to private acquisition or ownership
o Prolonged occupation, introduction of improvements or payment of realty taxes will
never ripen into ownership of said parcel of land
If either party has possessory rights to the subject property, it is NOT predicated on ownership, but
only on their ACTUAL POSSESSION of the subject property
The CA erred in not giving importance to the fact that petitioner had prior physical possession over
the subject land. It anchored its decision on the fact that the parties do not and cannot own the land
and that respondents now have actual possession over it
Ejectment proceedings are SUMMARY proceedings intended to provide an expeditious
means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. TITLE IS NOT
INVOLVEDthe sole issue to be resolved is the question as to who is entitled to the
physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto
o In the case at bar
The CA erred when it preferred the actual possession of the Spouses over the prior
physical possession of Domalsin on the ground that the parties do not and cannot
own the lot in question
Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party
in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong
hand, violence or terror
Courts will always uphold respect for prior possessionthus a party
who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even
against the owner himself
The fact that parties do not and cannot own the property under litigation does
not mean that the issue to be resolved is no longer priority of possessionthe
determining factor for one to be entitled to possession will be prior physical
possession and NOT actual physical possession
Since title is never in issue in a forcible entry case, the CA should have based its
decision on WHO HAD PRIOR POSSESSION
The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession
and that the same was lost through force, intimidation, stealth, threat and
strategy
Thus, the CA should have ruled on the issue of abandonment because it gave
precedence to the actual present possession of respondentsif indeed there was
abandonment of the land under consideration by petitioner, only then should
 respondents be given the possession of the same since abandonment is one way by
which a possessor may lose his possession

Foculan-Fudalan v. Ocial
Facts:
The Spouses Ocial, represented by their attorney-in-fact, filed an action for the declaration of
validity of partition and sale, recovery of ownership and possession and damages against Flavio
and Cristobal Fudalan
Baldomera, wife of Flavio and mother of Cristobal, intervened as 3rd party plaintiff against 3rd party
defendants, Heirs of Pedro and Ulpiano Fudernan (the Fudernans), the predecessors in interest of
Spouses Ocial
The subject of the action was a parcel of land located in Bohol in the name of Juana Fudernan
Spouses Ocial alleged in their complain that the heirs of Juana executed the Extrajudicial
Settlement Among Heirs with Simultaneous Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot 56-A, including 2 fruit
bearing mango trees
o That as new owners of the land, they caused the planting of different plants; that they
claimed the landowners share of the mango produce from the caretaker, that they caused
the placement of a no trespassing sign on one of the mango trees; that they also caused
the processing of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs with Simultaneous Sale
for the cancellation and issuance of a new tax declaration in their favor
June 2001the Fudalans, without any lawful right or authorization, planted ubi on a portion of Lot
56-A and they also claimed the landowners share of the mango produce
o The Fudalans placed 2 no-trespassing signs inside the property
Spouses Ocial then reached out to the barangay captain which initiated barangay conciliation
proceedings
o During the pendency of such proceedings , the Fudalans allegedly caused the installation of
a fence consisting of barbed wires with cemented posts around Lot 56-A, without necessary
permit from the barangay captain
The Fudalans claim the following:
o That they were the rightful owners of the subject land having purchased the same from the
Fudernans
o Such sale was evidenced by a private document printed in a blue paper
o That as owners, they planted ubi, posted the signs and installed a barbed wire fence around
the land
o That since their purchase, they had been in possession of the land in the concept of owners
and had been paying the real property taxes religiously
o That it was for this reason that they insisted that if there was any deed of extrajudicial
settlement of estate and simultaneous sale of the land by the Fudernans, the same was null
and void for being without legal basis
Baldomera intervened in behalf of the petitioners. She filed a complaint for specific performance,
quieting of title and nullification of the deed of extra-judicial settlement with simultaneous sale in
favor of Spouses Ocial
o She claimed that the property was absolutely owned by her parents who acquired the
property in 1935 and thereafter took actual possession of the land she averred that the
 possession was continuous, peaceful, open, public and adverse and in the concept of an
owner which was never disturbed until the Ocials filed this action
o She also claimed that in 1983, Teofredo and Euitiquia Fudernan approached her and her
husband. They represented themselves as the duly authorized representatives of their co-
heirs and agreed to settle their claims over the subject lot in their favor for the amount of
1,000this was evidence by a memorandum
The RTC confirmed the validity of the extrajudicial settlement with simultaneous sale recognizing
the rights of third party defendants to sell the land in question to the Ocials
The CA dismissed the appeal because it was filed out of time (206 days late)

Issue: Whether the RTC erred in rendering the sale of Lot-56A to the Ocials validNo

Held:
Baldomera claims that because they have been in adverse possession of the land for the requisite
period, their possession has now ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescriptionsuch
argument is untenable
Prescription = mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over immovable property. It is
concerned with the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely,
that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and
adverse
o May be ordinary or extraordinary
Ordinary = requires possession in good faith; it consists in the reasonable belief tha
the person from whom the thing is received has been the owner thereof , and can
transmit his ownership
Extraordinary = there is just title when the adverse claimant comes into possession
of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor is not the owner or cannot transmit any
right
In the case at bar
o Aside from Baldomeras bare allegation that her family had been in possession of the
subject property since it was sold to her parents, NO OTHER EVIDENCE, documentary or
otherwise, showing that the title to the subject property was indeed transferred from Juana
to her parents was presented
o Baldomera never denied that the tax declaration of the property was still in the name of
Juana as such, for the lack of just title, she could not have acquired the disputed property
by ordinary prescription through possession of 10 years
Occupation or use alone no matter how long, cannot confer title by
prescription of adverse possession unless coupled with the element of
hostility towards the true owner, that is, possession under the claim of title
o The sum of P1,000 cannot be considered a valid basis for a possession in good faith and
just title
Such arrangement is, at best, a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, which cannot be
made a foundation of a conclusion that Baldomera is a possessor in good faith and
with just title who acquired the property through acquisitive prescription
 by the very nature of the compromise agreement, no right can arise therefrom
because the parties executed the same only to buy peace and to write finis to
the controversyit did not create or transmit ownership rights over the
subject property
In EXTRAORDINARY PRESCRIPTION, ownership and other real rights over immovable property
are acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years even without the need of title
or of good faith
In the case at bar
o There was no mention of the predecessor parents of Baldomera as one of the
administrators which would only fairly suggest that they were never in possession of the
land
It was only in 1994 when Flavio Fudalan came to be named as its administrator after
the execution of the blue paper receipt of P1,000
It was only then that the Fudalans started paying taxes. Thus, the parents of
Baldomera could not have paid taxes to the land before that period for being not in
actual possession of the land contrary to their claim
The 30-year period would only be completed in the year 2024. The records also
show that as early as 2001, her possession was effectively interrupted with Spouses
Ocial filed a complaint before the barangay captain of Tangan, Bohol where
conciliation proceedings were held although no settlement was reached

Pearl v. Shoemart
Facts:
Pearl and Dean is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units called light
boxes. They secured a Certificate of Copyright Registration for the lightboxes, and where marketed
to advertisers under the trademark Poster Ads. The manufacture of the light boxes was
contracted to Metro Industrial Services. While Pearl and Dean secured copyright and trademark
registration, THEY NEVED DID SO FOR PATENTS
Pearl and Dean was supposed to enter into a contract with SM for the installation of these
lightboxes at SM Makati and SM Cubao. However, the contract for SM Cubao was not signed and
returned, and while the contract for SM Makati was signed, SM was later seeking its recission
2 years later, Metro Industrial offered to construct lightboxes for SM. 10 lightboxes were
manufactured by Metro Industrial for SM. SM then engaged the services of EYD Rainbox to
construct some more lightboxes
later on, North Edsa Marketing, sister company of SM was set-up to primarily sell advertising
space in lightboxes located at different SM branches. Upon filing of an infringement suit, the CA
eventually ruled that there was neither any copyright nor trademark infringement

Issue: Whether there was any copyright , trademark or patent infringement--- None

Held:
No copyright infringement since a lightbox is not a proper subject of copyright laws. It was neither
a literary nor an artistic work, but ENGINEERING or MARKETING innovation
 A Copyright is a statutory right, and thus, protection may only be obtained for works
enumerated by the law. At best, what copyright laws can protect is the TECHNICAL
DRAWING of the lightboxes, and there would be infringement if SM had reprinted these
technical drawings for sale to the public without a license from Pearl and Dean
o Only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright, NOT THE IDEA ITSELF
Neither was there patent infringement. Patent requires REGISTRATION
o There can be no patent infringement of a patent until such has been issued., since
whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant
of the patent
An inventor has no common law right to a monopoly of his invention, but if he
voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is free to copy and
use it with impunitya patent, however, gives the inventor the right to exclude
all others
o A patent has a 3-fold purpose:
Patent law seeks to foster and reward invention
It promotes disclosures of invention to stimulate further innovation and to
permit the public to practice the invention once the patent expires
The stringent requirements for patent protection seek to ensure that ideas in
the public domain remain there for the free use of the public
As for TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, the court said that the certificate of registration issued by
the Director of Patents can confer the exclusive right to use its own symbol ONLY TO THOSE
GOODS SPECIFIED IN THE CERTIFICATE, SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE CERTIFICATE
o One who has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption
and use of the same trademark by the other for products which are of a DIFFERENT
DESCRIPTION
o In the case at bar
Assuming arguendo that Poster Ads could validly qualify as a trademark, the
failure of P&D to secure a trademark registration for specific use on the lightboxes
meant that there could not have been any trademark infringement since registration
was an essential element thereof
Basically yung certificate dito for the trademark only covered stationery
products, NOT the lightboxes

Ecole de Cuisinie Manille v Renaud Cointreau

Facts:
Cointreau, a partnership registered under the laws of France, filed before the Bureau of Patents of
the DTI a trademark application for the mark LE CORDON BLEU & DEVICE
Petitioner, Ecole, filed an opposition to the subject application averring that:
o It is the owner of the mark LE CORDON BLEU, ECOLE DE CUISINE MANILLE, which it
has been using since 1948 in cooking and other culinary activities, including its restaurant
business
o It earned immense and invaluable goodwill such that Cointreaus use of the subject mark
will actually create confusion, mistake and deception to the buying public as to the origin
 and sponsorship of the goods, and cause great and irreparable injury and damage to
Ecoles business reputation and goodwill as a senior use of the same
Cointreau answered that it was true and lawful owner of the subject mark
o It has filed applications for the subject marks registration in various jurisdictions
o Le Cordon Bleu is a culinary school of worldwide acclaim which was established in Paris,
France
o Le Cordon Bleu was the first cooking school to have set the standard for teaching of
classical French cuisine and pastry making
o It has trained students from more than 80 nationalities, including Ecoles directress, Ms.
Dayrit
o Cointreau concluded that Ecoles claim of being the exclusive owner of the subject mark is
a fraudulent misrepresentation
During the pendency of the proceedings, Cointreau was issued a Certificate of Registration for the
marks CORDON BLEU & DEVICE and LE CORDON BLEU PARIS 1895 & DEVICE
The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO sustained Ecoles opposition to the subject mark,
necessarily resulting of Cointreaus application
o The BLA did not find such evidence sufficient to establish Cointreaus claim of prior use of
the same in the Philippines
o It claimed that the adoption and use of trademark must be in commerce in the Philippines
and not abroad
o Cointreau had not established any proprietary right entitled to protection in the Philippine
jurisdiction because the law on trademarks rests upon the doctrine of nationality or
territoriality
The IPO Director General reversed and set aside the BLAs decision granting Cointreaus appeal
and allowing the registration of the subject mark
o Only the owner thereof has the right to register the same, explaining that the user of a
mark in the Philippines is NOT ipso facto its owner
o Sec. 2-A of RA 166 states that ACTUAL USE is in the Philippines is NOT REQUIRED to
acquire ownership of a mark
o Ecloe may have prior use of the subject mark in the Philippines since 1948, but it failed to
explain how it came up with such name and mark
o Ecole has unjustly appropriated the subject mark, rendering it beyond the mantle of
protection of Sec. 4(d) of RA 166
The CA affirmed the IPO Director Generals decision in toto
o Cointreau is the true and actual owner of the subject mark with a right to register the same
in the Philippines under Sec. 37 of RA 166, having registered such mark in its country
of origin
o Cointreaus right to register the subject mark CANNOT be barred by Ecoles prior use
because its appropriation was done in bad faith
Ecole had no certificate of registration that would Cointreau on notice that the
former had appropriated or has been using the subject mark
Its application for trademark registration for the same is still pending with IPO
Issue: Whether the CA was correct in upholding the IPO Director Generals ruling that Cointreau is the
true and lawful owner of the subject markYes

Held:
Ecole argues that it is the rightful owner of the subject mark, considering that it was the firs entity
that used the same in the Philippineshence, entitled to its registration
Under Sec. 2 of RA 166, in order to register a trademark, one must be the owner thereof and
must have ACTUALLY USED the mark in commerce in the Philippines for 2 months prior to
the application for registration
o Sec. 2-A states clearly that actual use in commerce is also the test of ownership BUT
the provision went further saying that the mark MUST NOT HAVE BEEN
APPROPRIATED BY ANOTHER
o SEC. 2A DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE ACTUAL USE OF A TRADEMARK MUST BE
WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES
One may be an owner of a mark due to its actual use, but may not yet have the
right to register such ownership here due to the owners failure to used the
same in the Philippines for 2 months prior to registration
o **foreign marks which are not registered are still accorded protection against
infringement and/or unfair competition**
NOTE: the Philippines and France are both signatories to the Paris Convention
for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention)
Additional Notes (Paris Convention):
o Art. 6: x x x To refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark
which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of
a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well
known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this
Convention x x x
o Art. 8: A trade name shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the
obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark
Sec. 37 of RA 166 states:
o Sec. 37. Rights of foreign registrantsPersons who are national of, domiciled in, or have a
bona fide or effective business or commercial establishment in any foreign country, which is
a party to any international convention or treaty relation to marks or trade-names, or the
repression of unfair competition to which the Philippines may be a party, shall be entitled to
the benefits and subject to the provisions of this Act to the extent and under the conditions
essential to give effect to any such convention and treaties so long as the Philippine shall
continue to be a party thereto, except as provided in the following paragraphs of this
section
o Trade-names of persons described in the first paragraph of this section SHALL BE
PROTECTED WITHOUT THE OBLIGATION OF FILING OR REGISTRATION WHETHER
OR NOT THEY FORM PARTS OF MARKS
In the case at bar
 o The Philippines is obligated to assure nationals of the signatory-countries that they are
afforded an effective protection against violation of their intellectual property rights in the
Philippines
A trade name of a national of a State that is a party to the Paris Convention,
whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is protected
WITHOUT THE OBLIGATION OF FILING OR REGISTRATION
o Cointreau has been using the subject mark in France since 1895 prior to Ecoles first
averred first use of the same in the Philippines since 1948, of which the latter was fully
aware thereof
o In fact, Ecoles directress, Ms. Dayritt, had traine in Cointreaus Le Cordon Bleu culinary
school in Paris
o Cointreau was likewise the first registrant of the said mark both abroad and in the
Philippines
o Ecole had no certificate of registration over the subject mark but only a PENDING
APPLICATION covering services limited to Class 41 of the Nice Classification, referring to
the operation of a culinary school
It was filed AFTER Cointreau filed its trademark application for goods and the mark
in the Philippines, it cannot be said to have validly appropriated the same
At the time Ecole started using the subject mark, the same was already being used
by Cointreau, albeit abroad, of which Ecoles directress was fully aware, being an
alumna of the latters culinary school in Paris
Ecole cannot claim any tinge of ownership whatsoever over the subject mark
as Cointreau is the true and lawful owner thereof
NOTE:
o The present law on trademarks, RA 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines, as amended, has already dispensed with the
requirement of prior actual use at the time of registration
o Functions of a Trademark:
To point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is
affixed
To secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into the market a
superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill
To assure the public that they are procuring the genuine article
To prevent fraud and imposition
To protect the manufacturer against substitution and sale of an inferior and
different article as his product

ABS-CBN v. Gozon
Facts:
On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal complain against respondent GMA for
alleged act of copyright infringement under Secs. 177 and 211 of the Intellectual Property Code,
because the respondent aired footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at
NAIA from Iraq without petitioners consent
 ABS-CBN stated that it has an agreement with Reuters that the petition will contribute news and
content that it owns and makes to Reuters in exchange of the latters news and video material, and
Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBNs materials cannot be aired in the country
Respondent was a subscriber of Reuters and CNN live feeds. After it received the live feed of
Angelo dela Cruzs arrival and homecoming from Reuters, it immediately aired the video from that
newsfeed
o The respondent alleged that its news staff was not aware that there was (a news embargo)
agreement between ABS-CBN and Reuters
o Respondent also alleged that it was not aware that it aired petitioners footage
Assistant Prosecutor Venturanza issued a resolution which found probable cause to indict Dela
Pena-Reyes and Manalastas. (Head of News Operation and GMA News Program Manager)
o The respondents appealed the Prosecutors resolution before the DOJ
o DOJ Sec. Raul Gonzalez ruled in favor of respondents in his resolution and held that good
faith may be raised as a defense in this case
Meanwhile, the DOJ Acting Sec. Alberto Agra issued a resolution which reversed Sec. Gonzalezs
resolution and found probable cause to charge Dela Pena-Reyes, Manalastas, as well as to indict
Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores and Soho for violation of the Intellectual Property Code (due to copyright
infringement)
The CA rendered a decision which granted the petition for certiorari to reverse and set aside DOJ
Sec. Agras resolution and a prayer for issuance of a TRO
o The appellate court stated that the petitioner has copyright of its news coverage, BUT
respondents act of airing 5 seconds of homecoming footage without notice of the No
Access Philippines restriction of the live Reuters video feed, was undeniably attended by
good faith and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the IPC

Issue: Whether there is probable cause to find respondents to be held liable criminally for the case of
copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Lawthe petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED

Held:
The Court ruled that the criminal proceedings against Dela Pena-Reyes and Manalastas continue
due to copyright infringement
o Gozon, Duavit, Flores, and Soho were held NOT liable for the criminal act of copyright
infringement
o The Court held that mere membership in GMA 7s Board of Directors does not mean that
they have knowledge, approval, or participation in the criminal act of copyright infringement,
as there is need for their DIRECT/ACTIVE participation in such act
There was also lack of proof that they actively participated or exercised moral
ascendancy over Manalastas and Dela Cruz-Pena
Contrary to GMAs contention, the SC deemed GMAs mere act of re-broadcast of ABS-CBNs
news footage (arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq last July
22, 2004) for 2 mins and 40 seconds WITHOUT the latters authority CREATES PROBABLE
CAUSE to find GMAs news personnel Manalastas and Dela-Pena CRIMINALLY LIABLE for
violating provisions of the Intellectual Property Code that imposes STRICT LIABILITY for
copyright infringement
 o GMA was not diligent in their functions to prevent that footage from being aired on
television
o They knew that there would be consequences in carrying ABS-CBNs footage in their
broadcastwhich is why they allegedly cut the feed from Reuters upon seeing ABS-
CBNs logo and reporter
Note: The Court stated that Philippine laws on copyright infringement does not require criminal
intent (mens rea) and does not support good faith as a defense
Thus, the act of infringement and not the intent is the one that causes the damage
The Court also held that ABS-CBNs video footage is copyrightable because it is under
audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings.
o It also held that news or the event is not copyrightable
o The Court differentiated IDEA and EXPRESSION
IDEA = a form, the look or appearance of a thing
EXPRESSION = is its reality external, perceptible world of articulate sounds
and visible written symbols that others can understand
o Thus, the SC stated that ONLY THE EXPRESSION OF AN IDEA IS PROTECTED BY
COPYRIGHT, NOT THE IDEA ITSELF
o In the case at bar
Expression applies to the even captures and presented in a specific medium via
cinematography or processes analogous to it
The Court also gave the 4-fold test under the Fair Use Doctrine to determine fair use:
o The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for non-profit educational purposes
o The nature of the copyrighted work
o The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
as a whole
o The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
Fair usewhich is an exception to copyright owners monopoly of the works usage, was
defined by the SC as privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner
without the copyright owners consent or by copying the materials theme or idea rather
than its expression
o It also said that determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz forage is subject to
fair use is better left to the trial court where the proceedings are currently pending