G.R. No.

L-36402 March 16, 1987

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., vs. BENJAMIN TAN

Facts:

FILSCAP is the owner of musical compositions among which are the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo",
"Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You." Tan is the operator of Alex
Soda Foundation and Restaurant where a combo with professional singers were playing and singing the above-
mentioned compositions without any license from the appellant to play or sing the same. Accordingly, FILSCAP
demanded from Tan payment of the necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions but
the demand was ignored.

Hence, FILSCAP filed a complaint with the RTC for infringement of copyright against Tan for allowing the
playing in Tan's restaurant of said songs copyrighted in the name of the former. Tan, in his answer, countered that
the complaint states no cause of action. Tan maintains that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes
even if they are copyrighted do not constitute an infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law.

Issue:

1. Was there performance as defined under the copyright law?

2. Which discussion in this case is no longer applicable in light of IPC?

Ruling:

1. Yes. There were "public performances for profit. " The word "perform" as used in the Act has been applied to
"One who plays a musical composition on a piano, thereby producing in the air sound waves which are heard as
music ... and if the instrument he plays on is a piano plus a broadcasting apparatus, so that waves are thrown
out, not only upon the air, but upon the other, then also he is performing the musical composition." In relation
thereto, it has been held that "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was paid for by 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 food and drinks
and at the same time dance to the music of the orchestra, the music is furnished and used by the orchestra for
the purpose of inducing the public to patronize the establishment and pay for the entertainment in the purchase
of food and drinks.

In the case at bar, it is admitted that the patrons of the restaurant in question pay only for the food and
drinks and apparently not for listening to the music. It will be noted that for the playing and singing the musical
compositions involved, the combo was paid as independent contractors by the appellant. It is therefore obvious that
the expenses entailed thereby are added to the overhead of the restaurant which are either eventually charged in the
price of the food and drinks or to the overall total of additional income produced by the bigger volume of business
which the entertainment was programmed to attract. Consequently, it is beyond question that the playing and singing
of the combo in Tan's restaurant constituted performance for profit contemplated by the Copyright Law.

2. Tan cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law. Tan'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 for the corresponding copyrights
for the same is correct. (under the new law, no valid waiver)

The Supreme Court has ruled that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty days after its
publication, if made in Manila, or within the sixty 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 days prior to the
copyright application the law deems the object to have been donated to the public domain and the same can no
longer be copyrighted.

A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which was registered on April 20, 1956
became popular in radios long before registration while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14,
1955 had become popular twenty five years prior to 1968, or from 1943 and the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and
"Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10, 1966, appear to have been known and sang by the
witnesses as early as 1965 or three years before the hearing in 1968. The testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing
of this case on this subject were unrebutted by the appellant. 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. 166337.  March 7, 2005]

BAYANIHAN MUSIC vs. BMG

Facts

Jose Mari Chan (Chan) entered into a contract with 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" and “Afraid For Love To Fade". 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 first song and on May 21, 1980, for the second song.

Apparently, without the knowledge and consent of Bayanihan, Chan authorized BMG Records (Pilipinas) to
record and distribute the aforementioned musical compositions in a recently released album of singer Lea Salonga.

Bayanihan informed Chan and BMG of its existing copyrights over the subject musical compositions and the
alleged violation of such right by the two. No settlement was reached by the parties. Hence, Bayanihan filed with the
RTC a complaint against Chan and BMG for violation of Section 216 of Republic Act No. 8293.

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 (2) there is no
clear showing that Bayanihan would be greatly damaged by the refusal of the prayed for TRO. Chan, for his part
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 20) years, hence, he caused the rescission of said contracts in 1997.

RTC came out with an order denying Bayanihan's prayer for TRO. CA dismissed Bayanihan petition.

Issue

Who has a greater right to the song and to have the right of distribution? In light of the RA 8293 as
amended by RA 10372, who is the owner of the copyright of the song? CHAN

Ruling

Chan, being undeniably the composer and author of the lyrics of the two songs, is protected by the mere fact
alone that he is the creator thereof, conformably with Republic Act No. 8293, Section 172.2 of which reads: 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.

The two contracts between Bayanihan and Chan relative to the musical compositions subject of the suit
contain the following identical stipulations:       It is also hereby agreed to by the parties herein that in the event the
PUBLISHER (Bayanihan) fails to use in any manner whatsoever within two years any of the compositions covered by
this contract, then such composition may be released in favor of the WRITER (Chan) 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;      This contract may be renewed for a period of 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 days before the
expiration of this contract.

It would thus appear that the two contracts expired on October 1, 1975 and March 11, 1978, respectively,
there being neither an allegation, much less proof, that 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 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, because 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 almost two years before
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 3 years before Bayanihan
filed its complaint on August 8, 2000, therein praying, inter alia, for injunctive relief. By then, it would appear that
Bayanihan had no more right that is protectable by injunction.

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC February 8, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO.

Facts

Petitioners Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of the
decision of the Court that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against
Justice in connection with the decision he wrote in G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo.

Issue

1. What is the difference between copyright infringment and plagiarism?

2. Did justice Castillo commit copyright infringement? NO

Ruling

Black’s Law Dictionary defines plagiarism as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's
original ideas or creative expressions as one’s own." The presentation of another person’s ideas as one’s own must
be deliberate or premeditated—a taking with ill intent.

There is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level of courts not to use original language when
reinstating the laws involved in the cases they decide. Their duty is to apply the laws as these are written. But laws
include, under the doctrine of stare decisis, judicial interpretations of such laws as are applied to specific situations.
Under this doctrine, Courts are "to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point." And, because of the need to
be precise and correct, judges and practitioners alike, by practice and tradition, usually lift passages from such
precedents and writings, at times omitting, without malicious intent, attributions to the originators.

Is this dishonest? No. When practicing lawyers write about the law, they effectively place their ideas, their
language, and their work in the public domain, to be affirmed, adopted, criticized, or rejected. Being in the public
domain, other lawyers can thus freely use these without fear of committing some wrong or incurring some liability.

Never in the judiciary’s more than 100 years of history has the lack of attribution been regarded and
demeaned as plagiarism. This is not to say that the magistrates of our courts are mere copycats. They are not. The
decisions draw their apt conclusions regarding whether or not such laws, rulings, principles, or authorities apply to the
particular cases before the Court. These efforts, reduced in writing, are the product of the judges’ creativity. It is here
—actually the substance of their decisions—that their genius, originality, and honest labor can be found, of which
they should be proud.

In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a way
that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And when he
had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here that he drew materials from
various sources, including the three foreign authors cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent
views these present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some views in light of
the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts. Finally, he drew from his discussions of the facts
and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. On the whole, his work was original. He had but done an
honest work.

The Court probably should not have entertained at all the charges of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo.
But it is a case of first impression and petitioners, joined by some faculty members of UP school of law, have unfairly
maligned him with the charges of plagiarism. The charges as already stated are false, applying the meaning of
plagiarism as the world in general knows it.

True, Justice Del Castillo failed to attribute to the foreign authors materials that he lifted from their works and
used in writing the decision for the Court in the Vinuya case. But, as the Court said, the evidence as found by its
Ethics Committee shows that the attribution to these authors appeared in the beginning drafts of the decision.
Unfortunately, as testified to by a highly qualified and experienced court-employed researcher, she accidentally
deleted the same at the time she was cleaning up the final draft. The Court believed her since, among other reasons,
she had no motive for omitting the attribution. The foreign authors concerned, like the dozens of other sources she
cited in her research, had high reputations in international law.1awphi1

Notably, those foreign authors expressly attributed the controversial passages found in their works to earlier
writings by others. The authors concerned were not themselves the originators. With the remaining attributions after
the erroneous clean-up, the passages as it finally appeared in the Vinuya decision still showed on their face that the
lifted ideas did not belong to Justice Del Castillo but to others. He did not pass them off as his own.
 Habana v. Robles
GR No 131522, 19 July 1999

Facts:
Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of copyright
registration covering their published works, produced through their combined resources and
efforts, entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity), Books 1 and 2, and
WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1.

Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. 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.

In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked around various
bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance, they
came upon the book of respondent Robles and upon perusal of said book they were surprised
to see that the book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations,
and illustrative examples in their own book, CET.

After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books (CET and DEP), petitioners
found that several pages of the respondent's book are similar if not altogether a copy of the
petitioners' book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement.

Petitioners 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 respondent Robles' works.

a) Does similarity automatically signify infringement?

NO.
In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented several pages of the
books CET and DEP that more or less had the same contents. It may be correct that the books
being grammar books may contain materials similar as to some technical contents with other
grammar books, such as the segment about the "Author Card". However, the numerous pages
that the petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were
presented and the identical examples can not pass as similarities merely because of technical
consideration.

The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be attributed to the fact that both of
them were exposed to the APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience, teaching
approach and methodology are almost identical because they were of the same background.

However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the same
background in terms of teaching experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be
identical even in examples contained in their books. The similarities in examples and material
contents are so obviously present in this case.

b) For there to be substantial reproduction of the work, should the entire copyrighted work be
copied?

NO.
In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the
copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary
that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken
that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are
substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of
law to constitute piracy.

c) How was infringement established in this case?

The respondents' claim that the copied portions of the book CET are also found in foreign
books and other grammar books, and that the similarity between her style and that of
petitioners can not be avoided since they come from the same background and orientation
may be true. However, in this jurisdiction under Sec 184 of Republic Act 8293 it is provided that:
Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following
shall not constitute an infringement of copyright: x x x x x x x x x x x x

(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use
and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper
 articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and
the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

How can similar/identical examples not be considered as a mark of copying?

We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of pulling out
from Goodwill bookstores the book DEP upon learning of petitioners' complaint while
pharisaically denying petitioners' demand. It was further noted that when the book DEP was re-
issued as a revised version, all the pages cited by petitioners to contain a portion of their book
College English for Today were eliminated.

d) What is the essence of infringement?

The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to

underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of 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.
In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an
"injurious effect". Here, the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners'
book materials that were the result of the latter's research work and compilation and
misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not
acknowledge petitioners as her source.

e) Will the lack of knowledge that the work is copyrighted be a successful defense
against an allegation of copyright infringement?

NO.
A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate,
in such cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew
that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril.

Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright.--

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the

public, sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for
teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and the
name of the author, if appearing in the work is mentioned;

However, in several other pages, the treatment and manner of presentation of the topics of
DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET.

Hence, We believe that respondent 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.
 Serrano Laktaw v. Paglinawan
G. R. No. 11937, April 1, 1918

Facts:
In the complaint presented in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila on
February 20, 1915, it was alleged:
(1) That the plaintiff was, according to the laws regulating literary properties, the
registered owner and author of a literary work entitled Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog (Spanish-
Tagalog Dictionary) published in the City of Manila in 1889 by the printing establishment La
Opinion, and a copy of which was attached to the complaint, as Exhibit A;
(2) that the defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, reproduced said literary
work, improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work published by him and entitled
Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), a copy of which was also attached
to the complaint as Exhibit B;
(3) that said act of the defendant, which is a violation of article 7 of the Law of January
10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, caused irreparable injuries to the plaintiff, who was surprised
when, on publishing his new work entitled Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (Tagalog-Spanish
Dictionary) he learned of the fact, and
(4) that the damages occasioned to the plaintiff by the publication of the defendant's
work amounted to $10,000. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed the court to order the defendant to
withdraw from sale all stock of the work herein identified as Exhibit B and to pay the plaintiff
the sum of $10,000, with costs.

a) When is there copyright infringement by reproduction?

Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property.

Said article provides:
"Nobody may reproduce another person's work without the owner's consent, even
merely to annotate or add anything to it, or improve any edition thereof."

Therefore, in order that said article may be violated, it is not necessary, as the court below
seems to have understood, that work should be an improper copy of another work previously
published. It is enough that another's work has been reproduced without the consent of the
owner, even though it be only to annotate, add something to it, or improve any edition thereof.

Xxx

According to article 428 of the Civil Code, the author of a literary, scientific, or artistic
work, has the right to exploit it and dispose thereof at will. In relation to this right, there exists
the exclusive right of the author, who is the absolute owner of his own work, to produce it,
according to article 2 of the Law of January 10, 1879, and consequently, nobody may reproduce
it, without his permission, not even to annotate or add something to it, or to improve any edition
thereof, according to article 7 of said law.

Manresa, in his commentaries on Article 429 of the Civil Code (vol. 3, p. 633, 3d ed.) says
that the concrete statement of the right to literary properties is found in the legal doctrine
according to which nobody may reproduce another person's work, without the consent of its
owner, or even to annotate or add something to it or improve any edition thereof.

"He who writes a book, or carves a statue, or makes an invention, has the absolute right
to reproduce or sell it, just as the owner of land has the absolute right to sell it or its
fruits. But while the owner of the land, by selling it and its fruits, perhaps fully realizes all
its economic value, by receiving its benefits and utilities, which are represented, for
example, by the price, on the other hand, the author of a book, statue or invention, does
not reap all the benefits and advantages of his own property by disposing of it, for the
most important form of realizing the economic advantages of a book, statue or
invention, consists in the right to reproduce it in similar or like copies, every one of
which serves to give to the person reproducing them all the conditions which the
original requires in order to give the author the full enjoyment thereof. If the author of
a book, after its publication, cannot prevent its reproduction by any person who may
want to reproduce it, then the property right granted him is reduced to a very
insignificant thing and the effort made in the production of the book is in no way
rewarded."
b) What aspects did the Court look into to determine if there was copyright Infringement?

It appears from the evidence that although the plaintiff did not introduce at the trial the
certificate of registration of his property rights to said work which, according to said rules, was
kept in the Central Government of these Islands, and was issued to him in 1890, the same having
been lost during the revolution against Spain, and no trace relative to the issuance of said
certificate being obtainable in the Division of Archives of the Executive Bureau on account of
the loss of the corresponding records, yet as in the first page of said dictionary the property
right of the plaintiff was reserved by means of the words "Es propiedad del autor" (All rights
reserved), taken in connection with the permission granted him by the Governor-General on
November 24, 1889, to print and publish said dictionary, after an examination thereof by the
permanent committee of censors, which examination was made, and the necessary license
granted to him, these facts constitute sufficient proof, under the circumstances of the case, as
they have not been overcome by any evidence on the part of the defendant, showing that said
plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of article 36 of said law, which was a prerequisite
to the enjoyment of the benefits thereof according to the preceding articles, among which is
article 7, which is alleged in the complaint to have been violated by the defendant.
Even considering that said Law of January 10, 1879, ceased to operate in these Islands,
upon the termination of Spanish sovereignty and the substitution thereof by that of the United
States of America, the right of the plaintiff to invoke said law in support of the action instituted
by him in the present case cannot be disputed. His property right to the work Diccionario
Hispano-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), published by him and edited in 1889, is
recognized and sanctioned by said law, and by virtue thereof, he had acquired a right of which
he cannot be deprived merely because the law is not in force now or is of no actual application.
This conclusion is necessary to protect intellectual property rights vested after the
sovereignty of Spain was superseded by that of the United States. It was so held in the Treaty
of Paris of December 10, 1898, between Spain and the United States, when it declared in article 13
thereof that the rights to literary, artistic, and industrial properties acquired by the subject of
Spain in the Island of Cuba and in Porto Rico and the Philippines and other ceded territories, at
the time of the exchange of the ratifications of said Treaty, shall continue to be respected.
 Malang Santos v. McCullough Printing
G.R. No. L-19439, October 31, 1964

Facts:

This is an action for damages based on the provisions of Articles 721 and 722 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, allegedly on the unauthorized use, adoption, and appropriation by the
defendant company of the plaintiff's intellectual creation or artistic design for a Christmas
card. The design depicts "a Philippine rural Christmas time scene consisting of a woman and a
child in nipa hut adorned with a star-shaped lantern and a man astride a carabao beside a
tree, underneath which appears the plaintiff's Pen name, “Malang”.

Plaintiff Mauro Malang Santos, designed for former Ambassador Felino Neri, for his
Personal Christmas card greetings for the year 1950, the artistic motif in question. The following
year the defendant McCuUough Printing Company, without the knowledge and authority of
plaintiff, displayed the very design in its album of Christmas card and offered it for sale, for a
price.

Defendant moved for a dismissal of the action, claiming that:

(1) The design claimed does not contain a clear notice that it belonged to him and that
he prohibited its use by others;

(2) The design in question has been published but does not contain a notice of copyright,
as in fact it had never been copyrighted by the plaintiff, for which reason this action is barred
by the Copyright Law;

(3) The complaint does not state a cause of action.

1. May authorship be divested?

Yes.

When Ambassador Neri distributed 800 copies of the design in controversy, the plaintiff
lost control of his design and the necessary implication was that there had been a general
publication, there having been no showing of a clear indication that a limited publication was
intended. The author of a literary composition has a right to the first publication thereof. He
has a right to determine whether it shall be published at all, and if published, when, where, by
whom, and in what form. The exclusive right it confined to the first publication. When once
published, it is dedicated to the public, and the author loses the exclusive right to control
subsequent publication by others unless the work is placed under the protection of the
copyright law,

2. Which part of the decision is no longer applicable in light of the RA 8293?

Xxx Republic Act 165, provides, among others, that an intellectual creation should be
copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made in Manila, or within sixty (60) days if
made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public property. In the case at bar,
even as of this moment, there is no copyright for the design in question.

(NOW: Copyright protected upon creation, registration does not vest copyright protection. )