Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 251463. August 02, 2023

GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. FRANKLIN BAKER, INC. AND

ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

GAERLAN, J.:

Facts: Grandspan Development Corporation (petitioner) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money
against Franklin Baker, Inc. (FBI) and Advance Engineering Corporation (AEC; collectively,
respondents) in connection with a Construction Contract for the construction of the Integrated
Coconut Products Processing Plant. The Construction Contract allowed AEC to assign any
component of the scope of work to a subcontractor with FBI's consent. AEC then subcontracted
certain structural works to petitioner. The Subcontractor's Agreement between AEC and
petitioner contained a provision stating that any disagreement or dispute between the parties
would be submitted for arbitration to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).

Petitioner alleged that there was an unpaid balance for the subcontracted services, and it filed a
Complaint before the trial court seeking a sum of money from both AEC and FBI. FBI filed a
Motion to Dismiss, arguing, among other things, that jurisdiction over the case properly lied
with the CIAC in accordance with the arbitration clause in the Construction Contract. AEC also
invoked the arbitration clause in its Subcontractor's Agreement with petitioner.

Issue:

1. Whether petitioner's Complaint against AEC is subject to the CIAC jurisdiction.

2. Whether petitioner could validly implead FBI in the same complaint pursuant to Article
1729 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the instant petition, affirming the Decision dated March 15, 2019,
and the Resolution dated January 15, 2020, of the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the
dismissal of the petitioner's Complaint by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the referral of the
case to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).

Laws Used in the Case:

Executive Order No. 1008 (E.O. No. 1008): This law created the CIAC (Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission) and defined its jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected
with construction contracts.

Article 1729 of the Civil Code: This article imposes direct and solidary liability on the owner and
contractor in favor of a subcontractor for materials and labor supplied for a construction
project.

Rule 17.7 of A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC: Known as the "Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution" (ADR), this rule authorizes a trial court to refer construction disputes to arbitration
even if not all parties are bound by the arbitration agreement.
 EN BANC

G.R. No. 233918. August 9, 2022.

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., petitioner, vs. ANREY,
INC., respondent.

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J p:

Facts of the Case:

1. Background of Anrey Inc.: Anrey Inc. owns a chain of restaurants, and during monitoring
sessions conducted by FILSCAP representatives, it was observed that the establishments
played copyrighted music without securing proper licenses or paying fees.

2. Copyrighted Music Played: The copyrighted music played during the monitoring
sessions included songs such as "Gitara," "Don't Stop the Music," "Wherever You Will
Go," "Impossible," "Mahal Pa Rin," "Check On It," "Silver Wings," "What Do I Do With My
Heart," "Cross My Heart," "I Drive Myself Crazy," "Let the Pain Remain," and "In My
Heart," among others.

3. FILSCAP's Notifications: FILSCAP, after monitoring the establishments, sent letters to the
involved establishments, informing them that unauthorized public performance of
copyrighted music constitutes infringement. FILSCAP urged the establishments to secure
licenses to avoid legal prosecution.

4. Ignored Demands: Despite FILSCAP's notifications and demands, the establishments,

including Anrey Inc., allegedly ignored the warnings and continued to play copyrighted
music without obtaining the necessary licenses.
 5. Legal Action by FILSCAP: As a result, FILSCAP filed a Complaint for Copyright
Infringement against Anrey Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The complaint was
later amended. FILSCAP sought compensatory damages, nominal damages, exemplary
damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

6. Anrey's Response: In their answer to the complaint, Anrey denied playing any
copyrighted music within its establishments. Anrey argued that the establishments
played whatever music was broadcasted on the radio they were tuned into. They
claimed that radio stations, not the establishments, were responsible for paying the
corresponding royalties for the copyrighted music. Anrey contended that if they were
required to pay, it would result in double recovery for FILSCAP, as the radio stations had
already paid for the broadcast.

7. Claim of Non-Public Performance: Anrey further argued that even if the reception could
be considered a performance, it was not done publicly. They asserted that the broadcast
was played for the benefit of their staff and not for their customers.

Issue: Whether the unlicensed playing of radio broadcast as background music in dining areas
of a restaurant amount to copy infringement.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of FILSCAP, stating that playing radio music inside
Anrey Inc.'s restaurants without paying license fees constitutes a violation of the right to public
performance. The act of playing radio broadcasts, which include copyrighted music, was
considered a "performance" that required the permission of the copyright owner. The
unauthorized transmission of radio broadcasts for commercial purposes, in this case, enhancing
the ambiance and dining experience in Anrey's restaurants, does not fall under the concept of
fair use.

Laws Used in the Case: The case involved the application of copyright law, which protects
original and intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain. The economic rights of
copyright owners, particularly the exclusive right to carry out or authorize acts such as "public
performance" of the work, were relevant to the case.