Page 1 of 3
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 43 Bayanihan Music v BMG
[G.R. No. 166337.  March 7, 2005]
BAYANIHAN MUSIC vs. BMG
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2005.
G.R. No. 166337 (Bayanihan Music Philippines, Inc. vs. BMG Records (Pilipinas) and Jose Mari
Chan, et al.)
Subject of this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision dated December 14, 2004[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69626, upholding the Order dated August 24, 2001 of
the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City, Branch 90, which found no merit in petitioner's
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, along with the Order dated
January 10, 2002, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
On July 16, 1973, private respondent Jose Mari Chan (Chan) entered into a contract with
petitioner Bayanihan Music Philippines, Inc. (Bayanihan), whereunder the former assigned to
the latter all his rights, interests and participation over his musical composition "Can We Just
Stop and Talk A While". On March 11, 1976, the parties entered into a similar contract over
Chan's other musical composition entitled "Afraid For Love To Fade".
On the strength of the abovementioned contracts, Bayanihan applied for and was granted by the
National Library a Certificate of Copyright Registration for each of the two musical compositions,
thus: November 19, 1973, for the song "Can We Just Stop and Talk A While" and on May 21,
1980, for the song "Afraid for Love To Fade."
Apparently, without the knowledge and consent of petitioner Bayanihan, Chan authorized his co-
respondent BMG Records (Pilipinas) [BMG] to record and distribute the aforementioned musical
compositions in a then recently released album of singer Lea Salonga.
In separate letters both dated December 7, 1999, petitioner Bayanihan informed respondents
Chan and BMG of its existing copyrights over the subject musical compositions and the alleged
violation of such right by the two. Demands were made on both to settle the matter with
Bayanihan. However no settlement was reached by the parties.
Hence, on August 8, 2000, Bayanihan filed with the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City a
complaint against Chan and BMG for violation of Section 216 of Republic Act No. 8293,
otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, with a prayer for the
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining
respondent BMG from further recording and distributing the subject musical compositions in
whatever form of musical products, and Chan from further granting any authority to record and
distribute the same musical compositions.
In its answer, BMG contended, among others, that: (1) the acts of recording and publication
sought to be enjoined had already been consummated, thereby rendering moot Bayanihan's
prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction; and (2) there is no clear showing that petitioner
Bayanihan would be greatly damaged by the refusal of the prayed for TRO and/or preliminary
injunction. BMG also pleaded a cross-claim against its co-respondent Chan for violation of his
warranty that his musical compositions are free from claims of third persons, and a counterclaim
for damages against petitioner Bayanihan.
Chan, for his part, filed his own answer to the complaint, thereunder alleging that: (1) it was
never his intention to divest himself of all his rights and interest over the musical compositions in
question; (2) the contracts he entered into with Bayanihan are mere music publication
agreements giving Bayanihan, as assignee, the power to administer his copyright over his two
songs and to act as the exclusive publisher thereof; (3) he was not cognizant of the application
made by and the subsequent grant of copyrights to Bayanihan; and (4) Bayanihan was remissed
in its obligations under the contracts because it failed to effectively advertise his musical
compositions for almost twenty (20) years, hence, he caused the rescission of said contracts in
1997. Chan also included in his answer a counterclaim for damages against Bayanihan.
After hearing the parties, the lower court came out with an order denying Bayanihan's prayer for
TRO, saying, thus:
After carefully considering the arguments and evaluating the evidence presented by counsels,
this Court finds that the plaintiff has not been able to show its entitlement to the relief of TRO as
prayed for in its verified complaint (see Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended), hence, this Court is of the considered and humble view that the ends of justice
shall be served better if the aforecited application is denied.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the aforecited application or prayer for the issuance of a TRO is
denied.
SO ORDERED.
Thereafter, the same court, in its subsequent Order dated August 24, 2001,[2]cralaw likewise
denied Bayanihan's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to wit:
After carefully going over the pleadings and the pertinent portions of the records insofar as they
are pertinent to the issue under consideration, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not been able
to show its entitlement to the relief of preliminary injunction as prayed for in its verified complaint
(see Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended), hence, this Court is
of the considered and humble view that the ends of justice shall be served better if the aforecited
application is denied, (see also Order dated July 16, 2001).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the application or prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Its motion for a reconsideration of the same order having been likewise denied by the trial court
in its next Order of January 10, 2002,[3]cralaw petitioner Bayanihan then went to the Court of
Appeals on a petition for certiorari, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69626, imputing grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in issuing the Orders of August 24, 2001 and
January 10, 2001, denying its prayers for a writ of preliminary injunction and motion for
reconsideration, respectively.
In the herein assailed Decision dated December 14, 2004, the Court of Appeals upheld the
challenged orders of the trial court and accordingly dismissed Bayanihan petition, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding neither flaw of jurisdiction nor taint of grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of the assailed Orders of the respondent court dated August 24, 2001 and January 10,
2002, the instant petition is DISMISSED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.[4]cralaw
Hence, Bayanihan's present recourse.
It is petitioner's submission that the appellate court committed reversible error when it dismissed
its petition for certiorari and upheld the trial court's denial of its application for a writ of
preliminary injunction. Petitioner insists that as assignee of the copyrights over the musical
compositions in question, it has a clear legal right to a writ of preliminary injunction; that
respondents BMG and Chan violated its copyrights over the same musical compositions; that
despite knowledge by respondent BMG of petitioner's copyrights over the said musical
compositions, BMG continues to record and distribute the same, to petitioner's great and
irreparable injury.
We DENY.
We have constantly reminded courts that there is no power, the exercise of which is more
delicate and requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or which is more
dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction. A court should, as much as
possible, avoid issuing the writ which would effectively dispose of the main case without trial.
Here, nothing is more evident than the trial court's abiding awareness of the extremely difficult
balancing act it had to perform in dealing with petitioner's prayer for injunctive reliefs. Conscious,
as evidently it is, of the fact that there is manifest abuse of discretion in the issuance of an
injunctive writ if the following requisites provided for by law are not present: (1) there must be a
right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which the
Page 2 of 3
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 43 Bayanihan Music v BMG
injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right, [5]cralaw the trial court threaded the correct
path in denying petitioner's prayer therefor. For, such a writ should only be granted if a party is
clearly entitled thereto.[6]cralaw
Of course, while a clear showing of the right to an injunctive writ is necessary albeit its existence
need not be conclusively established, [7]cralaw as the evidence required therefor need not be
conclusive or complete, still, for an applicant, like petitioner Bayanihan, to be entitled to the writ,
he is required to show that he has the ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in its
complaint.[8]cralaw Here, the trial court did not find ample justifications for the issuance of the writ
prayed for by petitioner.
Unquestionably, respondent Chan, being undeniably the composer and author of the lyrics of the
two (2) songs, is protected by the mere fact alone that he is the creator thereof, conformably with
Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code, Section 172.2 of
which reads:
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of
expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.
An examination of petitioner's verified complaint in light of the two (2) contracts sued upon and
the evidence it adduced during the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction, yields
not the existence of the requisite right protectable by the provisional relief but rather a lingering
doubt on whether there is or there is no such right. The two contracts between petitioner and
Chan relative to the musical compositions subject of the suit contain the following identical
stipulations:
7.       It is also hereby agreed to by the parties herein that in the event the PUBLISHER
[petitioner herein] fails to use in any manner whatsoever within two (2) years any of the
compositions covered by this contract, then such composition may be released in favor of the
WRITER and excluded from this contract and the PUBLISHER shall execute the necessary
release in writing in favor of the WRITER upon request of the WRITER;
xxx    xxx       xxx
9.       This contract may be renewed for a period of two-and-one-half (2 1/2) years at the option
of the PUBLISHER. Renewal may be made by the PUBLISHER by advising the WRITER of such
renewal in writing at least five (5) days before the expiration of this contract. [9]cralaw
It would thus appear that the two (2) contracts expired on October 1, 1975 and March 11, 1978,
respectively, there being neither an allegation, much less proof, that petitioner Bayanihan ever
made use of the compositions within the two-year period agreed upon by the parties.
Anent the copyrights obtained by petitioner on the basis of the selfsame two (2) contracts, suffice
it to say 'that such purported copyrights are not presumed to subsist in accordance with Section

218[a] and [b], of the Intellectual Property Code,[10]cralaw because respondent Chan had put in
issue the existence thereof.
  It is noted that Chan revoked and terminated said contracts, along with others, on July 30, 1997, or
It is noted that Chan revoked and terminated said contracts, along with others, on July 30, 1997,
or almost two years before petitioner Bayanihan wrote its sort of complaint/demand letter dated
December 7, 1999 regarding the recent "use/recording of the songs 'Can We Just Stop and Talk
A While' and 'Afraid for Love to Fade,'" or almost three (3) years before petitioner filed its
complaint on August 8, 2000, therein praying, inter alia, for injunctive relief. By then, it would
appear that petitioner had no more right that is protectable by injunction.
Page 3 of 3
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 43 Bayanihan Music v BMG
218[a] and [b], of the Intellectual Property Code,[10]cralaw because respondent Chan had put in
issue the existence thereof.
almost two years before petitioner Bayanihan wrote its sort of complaint/demand letter dated
December 7, 1999 regarding the recent "use/recording of the songs 'Can We Just Stop and Talk
A While' and 'Afraid for Love to Fade,'" or almost three (3) years before petitioner filed its
complaint on August 8, 2000, therein praying, inter alia, for injunctive relief.

Lastly, petitioner's insinuation that the trial court indulged in generalizations and was rather
skimpy in dishing out its reasons for denying its prayer for provisional injunctive relief, the same
deserves scant consideration. For sure, the manner by which the trial court crafted its challenged
orders is quite understandable, lest it be subjected to a plausible suspicion of having prejudged
the merits of the main case.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

CASE DIGEST

court should, as much as possible, avoid issuing the writ which would effectively dispose of the main
case without trial.
  (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against
which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right,[5]cralaw the trial court threaded
the correct path in denying petitioner's prayer therefor. For, such a writ should only be granted if
a party is clearly entitled thereto.
  Of course, while a clear showing of the right to an injunctive writ is necessary albeit its existence
need not be conclusively established,[7]cralaw as the evidence required therefor need not be
conclusive or complete, still, for an applicant, like petitioner Bayanihan, to be entitled to the writ,
he is required to show that he has the ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in its
complaint.[8]cralaw Here, the trial court did not find ample justifications for the issuance of the
writ prayed for by petitioner.
  respondent Chan, being undeniably the composer and author of the lyrics of the two (2) songs, is
protected by the mere fact alone that he is the creator thereof
  An examination of petitioner's verified complaint in light of the two (2) contracts sued upon and the
evidence it adduced during the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction, yields not
the existence of the requisite right protectable by the provisional relief but rather a lingering
doubt on whether there is or there is no such right. xxx It would thus appear that the two (2)
contracts expired on October 1, 1975 and March 11, 1978, respectively, there being neither an
allegation, much less proof, that petitioner Bayanihan ever made use of the compositions within
the two-year period agreed upon by the parties
  Anent the copyrights obtained by petitioner on the basis of the selfsame two (2) contracts, suffice it to
say 'that such purported copyrights are not presumed to subsist in accordance with Section