Rule 19

EVIDENCE IN COPYRIGHT CASES

SEC 1. When copyright presumed to subsist. — In copyright infringement cases,
copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or other subject matter to which the
action relates, and ownership thereof shall be presumed to belong to complainant if he
so claims through affidavit evidence under Section 218 of the Intellectual Property
Code, as amended, unless defendant disputes it and shows or attaches proof to the
contrary in his answer to the complaint. A mere denial of the subsistence of copyright
and/or ownership of copyright based on lack of knowledge shall not be sufficient to
rebut the presumption.

In cases of copyright infringement, the court will presume that the ownership
thereof is valid upon claim by the defendant through affidavit evidence and will shift the
burden of proof to the defendant to disprove by showing sufficient evidence the falsity
or invalidity of the allegation.

What is an affidavit evidence? Section 218.1 of the Intellectual Property Code

defines Affidavit Evidence as an affidavit made before a notary public by or on behalf of
the owner of the copyright in any work or other subject matter and stating that:
(a) At the time specified therein, copyright subsisted in the work or other subject
matter;

(b) He or the person named therein is the owner of the copyright; and

(c) The copy of the work or other subject matter annexed thereto is a true copy
thereof, shall be admitted in evidence in any proceedings for an offense under
this Chapter and shall be prima facie proof of the matters therein stated until the
contrary is proved, and the court before which such affidavit is produced shall
assume that the affidavit was made by or on behalf of the owner of the
copyright.

Section 218.2. also provides that;

(a) Copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or other subject matter to
which the action relates if the defendant does not put in issue the question
whether copyright subsists in the work or other subject matter; and

(b) Where the subsistence of the copyright is established, the plaintiff shall be
presumed to be the owner of the copyright if he claims to be the owner of the
copyright and the defendant does not put in issue the question of his ownership.
 (c) Where the defendant, without good faith, puts in issue the questions of
whether copyright subsists in a work or other subject matter to which the action
relates, or the ownership of copyright in such work or subject matter, thereby
occasioning unnecessary costs or delay in the proceedings, the court may direct
that any costs to the defendant in respect of the action shall not be allowed by
him and that any costs occasioned by the defendant to other parties shall be
paid by him to such other parties.

SEC. 2. Effect of registration and deposit. — Registration and deposit of a work

with the National Library or the Intellectual Property Office shall not carry with it the
presumption of ownership of the copyright by the registrant or depositor, nor shall it be
considered a condition sine qua non to a claim of copyright infringement.

In relation to this rule, Section 191 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for
the Registration and Deposit with National Library and the Supreme Court Library.

Section 191. After the first public dissemination of performance by authority of

the copyright owner of a work falling under Subsections 172.1, 172.2 and 172.3 of this
Act, there shall, for the purpose of completing the records of the National Library and
the Supreme Court Library, within three (3) weeks, be registered and deposited with it,
by personal delivery or by registered mail two (2) complete copies or reproductions of
the work in such form as the directors of said libraries may prescribe. A certificate of
deposit shall be issued for which the prescribed fee shall be collected and the copyright
owner shall be exempt from making additional deposit of the works with the National
Library and the Supreme Court Library under other laws. If, within three (3) weeks after
receipt by the copyright owner of a written demand from the directors for such deposit,
the required copies or reproductions are not delivered and the fee is not paid, the
copyright owner shall be liable to pay a fine equivalent to the required fee per month of
delay and to pay to the National Library and the Supreme Court Library the amount of
the retail price of the best edition of the work. Only the above mentioned classes of
work shall be accepted for deposit by the National Library and the Supreme Court
Library.”

In the case of Sison Olaño et.al vs Lim Eng Co G.R. No. 195835, respondent
deposited with the National Library the final shop plans/drawings of the design and
specifications of the interior and exterior hatch doors of the Manansala Project for the
issuance of Certificate of Copyright Registration based on the allegation that petitioners
keep on infringing their intellectual property rights. The Supreme Court however, held
that the issuance of the Certificate of Copyright Registration and the ownership thereof
was not established by the evidence on record because the element of copyrightability
is absent. "Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and
copyrightability." While it is true that where the complainant presents a copyright
certificate in support of the claim of infringement, the validity and ownership of the
copyright is presumed. This presumption, however, is rebuttable and it cannot be
sustained where other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question of ownership,
as in the instant case. Moreover, "[t]he presumption of validity to a certificate of
copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not
ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline
the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts
the burden of doing so to the applicant." Here, evidence negating originality and
copyrightability as elements of copyright ownership was satisfactorily proffered against
LEC's certificate of registration.

The Supreme Court clarified in Columbia Pictures, Inc. et. Al vs CA G.R. No.
110318 that the certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library
and the Supreme Court Library serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of
the work but do not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or
automatically put his work under the protective mantle of the copyright law. It is not a
conclusive proof of copyright ownership. As it is, non-registration and deposit of the
work within the prescribed period only makes the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.

SEC. 3. Presumption of authorship. — The natural person whose name is indicated

on a work in the usual manner as the author shall, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, be presumed to be the author of the work. This presumption applies even if
the name is a pseudonym, provided the pseudonym leaves no doubt as to the identity
of the author.

The person or body corporate whose name appears on an audiovisual work in the usual
manner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed to be the maker of
said work.

In the case of Pacita Habana et. al vs Felicidad Robles & Goodwill Trading Co G.R. No.
131522, petitioners are the authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of
registration covering their published works, produced through their combined resources
and efforts entitled College English For Today, Books 1 and 2, and Workbook for
College Freshman English, Series 1, while the respondents are the author/publisher and
distributor/seller of another published work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH
PROFICIENCY" (DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book was covered
by copyrights issued to them. Petitioners alleged that respondents without petitioner’s
permission, copied and plagiarized portions of their book and that the contents and
illustrations were strikingly similar. The Court held that appropriation of copyrighted
work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed. Petitioners' 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. In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles
could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the
portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To allow another to
copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.
Note: The rights of an author involves Economic Rights, Moral Rights and Droit de Suite
Rights.

SEC. 4. International registration of works. — A statement concerning a work,

recorded in an international register in accordance with an international treaty to which
the Philippines is or may become a party, shall be construed as true until the contrary is
proved, except:
a) Where the statement cannot be valid under Republic Act No. 8293, as
amended, or any other law concerning intellectual property; or
b) Where the statement is contradicted by another statement recorded in the
international register.

Statements of copyright works recorded before the international register pursuant to

International Copyright Convention and Treaties for the purpose of establishing
obligations for treaty members and signatories to adhere to and implement in their
national laws on copyright is considered true. By way of exception, the following are
considered invalid;
a. Where the statement cannot be valid under Republic Act No. 8293, as
amended, or any other law concerning intellectual property; or
b. b) Where the statement is contradicted by another statement recorded in the
international register.