CASE DIGEST: Habana vs. Robles
Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the ideaof a dating game
PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO vs. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and
GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC. G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999
FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued of the book,
College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles was the authorof the book
Developing English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the respondent's
book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book.Habana et al. filed an action
for damages and injunction, alleging respondent'sinfringement of copyrights, in violation of
P.D. 49. They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the
contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted, copied,
plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET.
On the other hand, Robles contendsthat the book DEP is the product of her own intellectual
creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book and that the similarities
may be due to the authors' exerciseof the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as
guides."
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolvingthem of any liability. Later, the
Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favorof respondentsRobles and Goodwill Trading Co.,
Inc. In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial
court's decision.
ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.
HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not
identical with the text of CET. The court finds that respondent Robles' act of liftingfrom the
book of petitionerssubstantial portions of discussions and examples,and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have donewas 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. Labels: case digest, commercial law, copyright Email This
Joaquin vs drilon
Intellectual Property - Law on Copyright - Game Show - Ideas and ConceptsNot Covered by
Copyright
FACTS: BJ ProductionsInc. (BJPI) was the holder of copyright over the show Rhoda and Me. It
holds rights over the show's format and style of presentation. In 1991, BJPI's president
Francisco Joaquin saw on TV RPN 9's show It's a Date,which is basically the same as Rhoda
and Me.He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager of the show It's a Date. Zosa later
sought a review of the prosecutor's resolution before the Secretary of Justice (Drilon). Drilon
reversed the findings of the fiscal and directed him to dismiss the case against Zosa.
ISSUE: Whether ornot the decision of Drilon is valid.
HELD: Yes.The essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of
copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section 2 of PD.No. 49 (Copyright Law).
show is a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemesin their abstract
form clearly do not fall within the class of works or materials susceptible of copyright
registration as provided in PD. No. 49. What is covered by BJPI's copyright is the specific
episodes of the show Rhoda and Me.Further, BJPI should have presented the master
videotape of the show in orderto show the linkage between the copyright show (Rhoda and
Me) and the infringingshow (It's a Date). This is based on the ruling in 20th Century Fox vs CA
(though this has been qualified by Columbia Pictures vs CA, this is still good law). Though BJPI
did provide a lot of written evidenceand description to show the linkage between the shows,
the same were not enough.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.
ABSCBN vs PHIL MULTI MEDIA
Intellectual Property - Law on Copyright - Must-Carry Rule Philippine
FACTS: Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) is a signal provider which has cable and satellite services. It
is providingits satellite services through DreamBroadcasting System. PMSI has its "Free TV" and
"PremiumChannels". The Free TV includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7 and other local networks. The
premium channels include AXN, Jack TV, etc which are paid by subscribers before such channels
can be transmitted as feeds to a subscriber's TV set which has been installed with a Dream satellite.
ABS-CBN is a television and broadcasting corporation. It broadcaststelevision programs by
wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces,and by satellite to provincial stations
through Channel 2 and Channel 23. The programs aired over Channels 2 and 23 are either
produced by ABS-CBN or purchased from or licensedby 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. In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSIfor allegedly
engaging in re broadcasting and thereby infringingon ABS-CBN'scopyrights; that the transmission
of Channels 2 and 23 to the provinces where these two channels are not usually shown altered
ABS-CBN's programming for the said provinces.PMSI argued that it is not infringing upon ABS-
CBN's copyrights because it is operating underthe "Must-Carry Rule" outlined in NTC (National
Telecommunications Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88.
ISSUE: Whether ornot PMSIinfringed upon the copyrights of ABS-CBN.
HELD: No.The "Must-Carry Rule" under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the limitations on
copyright. The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of news, information,
education, sports event and entertainment programs other than those provided forby mass
media and afforded television programs to attain a well informed, well-versed and culturally
refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The very intent and spirit of the NTC
Circular will prevent a situation whereby station owners and a fewnetworks would have
unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders,to communicate only their
own views on public issues, people,and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed -
contrary to the state policy that the (franchise) grantee like ABS-CBN, and other TV station owners
and eventhe likes of PMSI, shall provide at all times sound and balanced programming and assist
in the functions of public information and education. PMSIwas likewise granted a legislative
franchise under Republic Act No.8630, Section4 of which similarly states that it "shall provide
adequate public service time to enablethe government, through the said broadcasting stations, to
reach the population on important public issues; provideat all times sound and balanced
programming; promote public participation such as in community programming; assist in the
functions of public information and education. The "Must-Carry Rule" favors both broadcasting
organizations and the public. It prevents cable television companies from excluding broadcasting
organization especially in those places not reached by signal. Also,the rule prevents cable
television companies fromdepriving viewers in far-flung areas the enjoyment of programs
available to city viewers.
FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS & PUBLISHERS, INC. (FILSCAP) v BENJAMIN TAN
G.R. No. L-32339. March 29, 1988
FACTS: FILSCAP: - Is the ownerof certain musical compositionsamong which are the songs entitled:
"Dahil SaIyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of
You." - Filed a complaint with the lower court for infringement of copyright against defendant-
appellee for allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs copyrighted in
the name of the former.
Benjamin Tan: - Countered that the complaint states no causeof action. While not denying the
playing of said copyrighted compositionsin his establishment, appellee maintains that the mere
singingand playing of songs and popular tunes evenif they are copyrighted do not constitute an
infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law.
ISSUE: whether or not the playing and signing of musical compositionswhich have been
copyrighted underthe provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the establishment of the
defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for profit within the meaning and
contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines; and assuming that there were indeed
public performances forprofit, whether or not appellee can be held liable therefor.
Held: NO It has been held that "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was
paid forby the public in purchases of food and drink constituted "performance for profit" within a
Copyright Law." Thus,it has been explained that while it is possible in such establishments for the
patrons to purchase their foodand drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the
orchestra, the music is furnished and used by the orchestra forthe purpose of inducing the public
to patronizethe establishment and pay for the entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks.
The defendant conducts his place of business for profit, and it is public; andt he music is
performed for profit.
Nevertheless, appellee cannot be said to have infringedupon the Copyright Law. Appellee's
allegation that the composers of the contested musical compositions waived their right in favor of
the general public when they allowed their intellectual creations to become property of the public
domain before applying forthe corresponding copyrights forthe same is correct.
The SupremeCourt has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative OrderNo. 3(as
amended, dated September18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office
relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated pursuant to Republic Act165,
provides among other things that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30)days
after its publication, if made in Manila, or within the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which
renders such creation public property." Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object
sought to be copyrighted for thirty (30) days priorto the copyright application the law deems the
object to have been donated to the public domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted.
Under the circumstances, it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become
public property, and are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law
G.R. No. 168662 February 19, 2008
SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED, petitioner, vs. EDGAR C. LIM, doing business as ORIGNAMURA
TRADING, respondent.
D EC ISION
CORONA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari1 seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 746602 and its resolution3denying reconsideration.
PetitionerSanrio Company Limited,a Japanese corporation, owns the copyright of various
animated characters such as "Hello Kitty," "Little Twin Stars," "My Melody," "Tuxedo Sam"
and "Zashikibuta" among others.4 While it is not engaged in business in the Philippines, its
products are sold locally by its exclusive distributor,Gift Gate Incorporated (GGI).5
As such exclusive distributor, GGI entered into licensing agreements with JC Lucas Creative
Products,Inc., PaperLine Graphics, Inc. and Melawares Manufacturing Corporation.6 These
local entities were allowed to manufacture certain products (bearing petitioner's copyrighted
animated characters) forthe local market.
Sometime in 2001, due to the deluge of counterfeit Sanrio products,GGI asked IP Manila
Associates (IPMA) to conduct a market research. The research's objective was to identify
those factories, department stores and retail outlets manufacturingand/or selling fake Sanrio
items.7 After conductingseveral test-buys in various commercial areas, IPMAconfirmed that
respondent's Orignamura Trading in Tutuban Center, Manila was selling imitations of
petitioner's products.8
Consequently, on May 29, 2000, IPMA agents Lea A. Carmona and Arnel P. Dausan executed a
joint affidavit attesting to the aforementioned facts.9 IPMA forwarded the said affidavit to
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which thereafterfiled an application forthe
issuance of a search warrant in the office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila.10
After conductingthe requisite searching inquiry, the executive judge issued a search warrant
on May 30, 2000.11 On the same day, agents of the NBI searched the premises of Orignamura
Trading. As a result thereof,they were able to seize various Sanrio products.12
On April 4, 2002, petitioner,through its attorney-in-fact Teodoro Y. Kalaw IV of the
Quisumbing Torres law firm, filed a complaint-affidavit13 with the Task-Force on Anti-
Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ)against respondent for
violation of Section 217 (in relation to Sections 17714 and 17815) of the Intellectual Property
Code (IPC) which states:
Section 217. Criminal Penalties.- 217.1. Any person infringingany right secured by provisions
of Part IV of this Act or aiding or abetting such infringement shall be guilty of a crime
punishable by:
(a) Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plusa fine ranging from Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000) to One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) forthe first offense.
(b) Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) years plusa fine ranging from
One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) for
the second offense.
(c) Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to nine (9) years plus a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) to One million five hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,000)
for the third and subsequent offenses.
(d) In all cases, subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency.
217.2. In determining the number of years of imprisonment and the amount of fine, the court
shall consider the value of the infringing materials that the defendant has produced or
manufactured and the damage that the copyright owner has suffered by reasonof
infringement.
217.3. Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a work has in his possession an
article which he knows,or ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work forthe
purpose of:
(a) Selling, lettingfor hire,or by way of trade offeringor exposing forsale, or hire,the article;
(b) Distributing the article forpurpose of trade or any other purpose to an extent that will
prejudice the rights of the copyright of the ownerin the work; or
(c) Trade exhibit of the article in public, shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on
conviction to imprisonment and fine as above mentioned. (emphasis supplied)
Respondent asserted in his counter-affidavit16 that he committed no violation of the
provisions of the IPC because he was only a retailer.17 Respondent neither reproduced nor
manufactured any of petitioner's copyrighted item; thus, he did not transgress the economic
rights of petitioner.18 Moreover,he obtained his merchandise from authorized
manufacturers of petitioner's products.19
On September25, 2002, the TAPP found that:
Evidence on record would show that respondent bought his merchandise from legitimate
sources, as shown by official receipts issued by JC Lucas Creative Products,Inc., PaperLine
Graphics, Inc. and Melawares Manufacturing Corporation. In fact, in her letter dated May 23,
2002, Ms. Ma. Angela S. Garcia certified that JC Lucas Creative Products,Inc., PaperLine
Graphics, Inc. and Melawares Manufacturing Corporation are authorized to produce certain
Sanrio products. While it appears that some of the items seized duringthe search are not
among those products which [GGI] authorized these establishments to produce,the fact
remains that respondent bought these from the abovecited legitimate sources. At this
juncture, it bears stressing that respondent relied on the representations of these
manufacturers and distributors that the items they sold were genuine.As such, it is not
incumbent upon respondent to verify fromthese sources what items [GGI] only authorized
them to produce. Thus,as far as respondent is concerned,the items in his possession are not
infringing copies of the original [petitioner's] products.(emphasis supplied)20
Thus, in a resolution dated September25, 2002, it dismissed the complaint due to
insufficiency of evidence.21
Petitionermoved for reconsideration but it was denied.22 Hence,it filed a petition forreview
in the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor of the DOJ.23 In a resolution dated August 29, 2003,
24 the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor affirmed the TAPP resolution.The petition was
dismissed forlack of reversible error.
Aggrieved, petitionerfiled a petition for certiorari in the CA. On May 3, 2005, the appellate
court dismissed the petition on the ground of prescription. It based its action on Act 3326
which states:
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
prescribe in accordance with the followingrules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by
a fine or by imprisonment for not more than onemonth, or both;(b) after fouryears for
those punished by imprisonment for more than one month,but lessthan two years; (c) after
eight years for those punished by imprisonment fortwo years or more,but lessthan six years;
and (d) aftertwelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or
more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years; Provided,
however, That all offenses against any law or part of law administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue shall prescribe after five years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances
shall prescribe aftertwo months.
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run fromthe day of the commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same may not be known at the time, fromthe discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed forreasons not
constitutingjeopardy. (emphasis supplied)
Accordingto the CA, because no complaint was filed in court within two years after the
commission of the alleged violation, the offense had already prescribed.25
On the merits of the case,the CA concluded that the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in dismissingthe petition for review.26 To be criminally liable for violation of
Section 217.3 of the IPC, the followingrequisites must be present:
1. possession of the infringingcopy and
2. knowledge orsuspicion that the copy is an infringement of the genuine article.
The CA agreed with the DOJ that petitionerfailed to prove that respondent knew that the arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
merchandise he sold was counterfeit. Respondent, on the other hand, was able to show that patent and gross enough to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to
he obtained these goods from legitimate sources.27 perform a duty enjoined by law.39
Petitionermoved for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence,this petition. The prosecutors in this case consistently found that no probablecause existed against
respondent for violation of the IPC. They were in the best position to determine whether or
Petitionernow essentially avers that the CA erred in concludingthat the alleged violations of
not there was probable cause. We find that they arrived at their findings after carefully
the IPC had prescribed. Recent jurisprudence holds that the pendency of a preliminary
evaluating the respective evidence of petitionerand respondent.Their conclusion was not
investigation suspends the running of the prescriptive period.28 Moreover,the CA erred in
tainted with grave abuseof discretion.
finding that the DOJ did not commit grave abuseof discretion in dismissingthe complaint.
Respondent is liable for copyright infringement (even if he obtained his merchandise from WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
legitimate sources) because he sold counterfeit goods.29
Although we do not agree wholly with the CA, we deny the petition.
Filing Of The Complaint In the DOJ Tolled The Prescriptive Period
Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive period for violation of special laws starts
on the day such offense was committed and is interrupted by the institution of proceedings
against respondent (i.e., the accused).
Petitionerin this instance filed its complaint-affidavit on April 4, 2002 or oneyear, ten months
and fourdays afterthe NBI searched respondent's premises and seized Sanrio merchandise
therefrom. Although no information was immediately filed in court, respondent's alleged
violation had not yet prescribed.30
In the recent case of Brillantes v. Court of Appeals,31 we affirmed that the filing of the
complaint forpurposes of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription of
criminal responsibility.32 Thus, the prescriptive period forthe prosecution of the alleged
violation of the IPC was tolled by petitioner's timely filing of the complaint-affidavit before
the TAPP.
In The AbsenceOf Grave AbuseOf Discretion, The Factual Findings Of The DOJ In Preliminary
Investigations Will Not Be Disturbed
In a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutordetermines whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof.33
Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof
and should be held for trial.34 Because a public prosecutor is the one conductinga
preliminary investigation, he determines the existence of probable cause.35 Consequently,
the decision to file a criminal information in court or to dismiss a complaint depends on his
sound discretion.36
As a general rule, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct
of a preliminary investigation. For this reason, courts generally do not interfere with the
results of such proceedings.A prosecutor alone determinesthe sufficiency of evidencethat
will establish probable causejustifying the filing of a criminal information against the
respondent.37 By way of exception, however, judicial reviewis allowed where respondent
has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.38 Otherwise
stated, such review is appropriate only when the prosecutor has exercised his discretion in an