**1. Columbia Pictures vs.

CA
Case Name Columbia Pictures Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 110318, 28 August 1996, En
Banc, Regalado [J]

Topic Copyright infringement

Summary ● Copyrighted films allegedly pirated by Sunshine.

Facts
● This case stemmed from the request of Columbia Pics for the issuance of
SW against establishments allegedly selling its copyrighted films in Metro
Manila.
● Sunshine was raided and therein found were films of Columbia Pics.
● Sunshine moved that the SW be set aside, and it was eventually set aside
by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, on the basis of the SC ruling in the
20th Century Fox case.

Is CP doing business in the Philippines, thus, should it have SEC license

therefor? NO.

● Although a foreign corporation is without license to transact business in

the Philippines, it does not follow that it has no capacity to bring an action.
Such a license is not necessary if it is not engaged in business in the
Philippines. (S133, Corporation Code)

● The fact that petitioners are admittedly copyright owners or owners of

exclusive distribution rights in the Philippines of motion pictures or films
does not convert such ownership into an indicium of doing business which
would require them to obtain a license before they can sue upon a cause
of action in local courts.

For the determination of probable cause to support the issuance of a search

warrant in copyright infringement cases involving videograms, is the
production of the master tape for comparison with the allegedly pirate
copies necessary? NO, unlike in the 20th Century Fox case, it is not required
here because the testimonies of the witnesses were straightforward and clear and
there is no uncertainty therein, such that there is no need for it to be substantiated
by the comparison of the master copies and the allegedly copied films. ***

● The 20th Century Fox ruling cannot be retroactively applied to the instant
case, where the SC ruled that the presentation of the master tapes, in
order to show probable cause for the issuance of SW, is required.
○ At most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in
determining the existence of probable cause in copyright
infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus
between the master tape and the pirated copies. – It is NOT
ALWAYS necessary.
○ A blind espousal of the requisite of presentation of the master
 tapes in copyright infringement cases, as the prime determinant of
probable cause, is too exacting and impracticable a requirement to
be complied with in a search warrant application which, it must not
be overlooked, is only an ancillary proceeding.

● Re time when Probable cause is determined – It being the duty of the

issuing officer to issue, or refuse to issue, the warrant as soon as
practicable after the application therefor is filed, the facts warranting the
conclusion of probable cause must be assessed at the time of such
judicial determination by necessarily using legal standards then set
forth in law and jurisprudence, and not those that have yet to be
crafted thereafter.

In this case:

● The records clearly reflect that the testimonies of the witnesses were
straightforward and stemmed from matters within their personal
knowledge. They displayed none of the ambivalence and uncertainty that
the witnesses in the 20th Century Fox case exhibited. This categorical
forthrightness in their statements, among others, was what initially and
correctly convinced the trial court to make a finding of the existence of
probable cause.

Note: Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.

Is there probable cause that Sunshine committed copyright infringement, so

that the SW were validly issued? YES.

● 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 what works he was indirectly
copying, or 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.

● 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.

→ TEST: 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 a piracy.

Note: Even with respect to works which are required under Section 26 thereof to be
registered and with copies to deposited with the National Library, such as books, including
 composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories and gazetteers; and periodicals,
including pamphlets and newspapers; lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared
for oral delivery; and letters, the failure to comply with said requirements does not deprive
the copyright owner of the right to sue for infringement. Such non-compliance merely
limits the remedies available to him and subjects him to the corresponding sanction. →
the copyright for a work is acquired by an intellectual creator from the
moment of creation even in the absence of registration and deposit.

Doctrine

2. Joaquin vs. Drilon

Case Name Joaquin v. Drilon, GR 108946, 28 January 1999, Second Division, Mendoza [J]

Topic Matters not covered by copyright

Summary ● Format and style of game show

Facts

● This case involves the copyright of BJPI of the format and style of a dating
game show, called Rhoda and Me, and the alleged infringement thereof by
RPN because of the latter’s dating show called, “It’s a Date”.
● Upon learning of this, BJPI demanded that RPN discontinue airing “It’s a
Date”.
● Meanwhile, RPN registered its copyright over the first episode of “It’s a
Date”.
● Thereafter, BJPI filed a complaint against RPN for copyright infringement
under PD 49.
● RPN contends here that BJPI’s copyright covers only a specific episode of
Rhoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are
not covered by copyright protection.

Are TV show formats covered by copyright? (NO, because the IP Code does
not provide for the format or mechanics of a show as protected under
copyright, and it is a mere idea/concept as opposed to a finished work
which is protected by copyright.)

● Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a

new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-
existing right regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights
are only such as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed
only with respect to the subjects and by the persons and on terms and
conditions specified in the statute.

● Further, the law refers to finished works and not to concepts, as subject
matters covered by copyright. The copyright does not extend to an idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
 discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work.

● What is the subject of BJPI’s copyright? The audio-visual recordings of

each episode of Rhoda and Me → as Cinematographic works and works produced
by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual
recordings.

Doctrine The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game
show.

3. Habana vs. Robles

Case Name Habana v. Robles, GR 131522, 19 July 1999, First Division, Pardo

Topic

Summary ● English CET books for college (Habana) vs. English DEP books (Robles)

Facts

● This case stemmed from the time when Habana and his co-authors were
in the process of revising their works. It appears that they were scouting
for similar work various bookstores and discovered that Robles’ book have
similar and identical portions from Habana’s book.

● Habana demanded damages from Robles, as well as to cease and desist

from further selling and distributing his book which allegedly infringes on
Habana’s copyright. Their demands were ignored so they filed a complaint
against Robles for infringement and/or unfair competition with damages.

● Robles denied the allegations and mainly posited that her book was a
product of her own independent research. She also alleged that the copied
portions of habana’s book 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.

Whether, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity

between DEP and CET, respondents committed no copyright infringement.
(YES, because Robles lifted discussions and examples from Habana’s book and
she failed to acknowledge them in her book. Here, there is substantial
reproduction of the work.)

● S177 provides that copyright or economic rights shall consist of the

exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent, among others, the
“reproduction of the work or substantial part of the work” by the copyright
owner. In relation thereto, S177.7 provides that the inclusion of a work in a
 publication, provided that the source and name of the author is mentioned
(if appearing in the work), is not considered as copyright infringement.

○ Infringement of a 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.

● When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not

necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large
portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original
work is substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright
and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated.

In this case:

● Robles copied portions of Habana’s book without mentioning the authors’

names.

● Re Robles’ argument that the similarity in their examples and style can be
attributed to the fact that they come from the same background/field –
INCORRECT, 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.

● Indicia of guilt of Robles – when she learned of Habana’s demand, she

pulled out her books from Goodwill while at the same time denying their
allegations; when she revised her books, she removed the portions
allegedly copied from Habana’s book.

Whether Robles abused a writer’s right to fair use. To what extent can
copying be injurious to the author of the book being copied. Is it enough
that there are similarities in some sections of the books or large segments
of the books are the same? (NO, it is not enough that one’s work be copied.
Copying becomes an infringement if one’s work is appropriated such that there is
an injurious effect to the copyright owner.)

● 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.

Doctrine ● When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not necessarily

 require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be
copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is
substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an
injurious extent, the work is appropriated.
● It is not enough that one’s work be copied. Copying becomes an
infringement if one’s work is appropriated such that there is an injurious
effect to the copyright owner.

4. Ong Ching Kian vs. CA

Case Name Ong Ching Kian Chuan v. Court of Appeals, GR 130360, 15 August 2001, Second
Division, Quisumbing [J]

Topic Preliminary injunction

Summary ● Design on wrapper for vermicelli – cellophane wrappers with a design of

two-dragons and the TOWER trademark on the uppermost portion.

Facts

● This case involves the packaging wrapper of vermicelli being imported

from China National Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs, and being sold by Ong,
for which he acquired a copyright.

● Ong discovered that Tan has also been importing vermicelli from the same
company and has been repacking such in nearly identical wrapper. Thus,
he filed a complaint for infringement with prayer for PI with damages,
against Tan.
○ RTC issued the PI which Tan opposed.

● Tan alleged that he was registered with CNCOF, and that he is the
exclusive distributor thereof in the Philippines. He added that Ong merely
copied the two-dragon design from Ceroilfood Shandong.

● The CA restrained the enforcement of the WPI issued by the RTC.

Notably, the CA also ruled on the merits and held that Ong’s wrapper is a
copy of Ceroilfood’s wrapper. This was not raised in the R65 petition
before the CA.

● Allegations of Ong – he is the holder of the copyright registration, thus,

he has the protection. He also asserts that Tan has no registered copyright
and merely relies on the trademark of his principal abroad, which insofar
as Philippine laws are concerned, cannot prevail over the petitioner’s
copyright.

● Allegations of Tan – Ong has no “clear right” over the use of the
copyrighted wrapper since the PAGODA trademark and label were first
adopted and used and have been duly registered by Ceroilfood Shandong
 not only in China but in nearly 20 countries and regions worldwide.
Petitioner was not the original creator of the label, but merely copied the
design of Ceroilfood Shandong.

Was the issuance of the writ of PI proper? (NO. The design by Ong was not original
as he merely copied the same from Ceroilfood; consequently, he is not entitled to the
preliminary injunction.) → but strictly - the WPI was improperly issued because
Ong failed to establish his clear and unmistakable right thereto.

● A person to be entitled to a copyright must be the original creator of the

work. He must have created it by his own skill, labor and judgment without
directly copying or evasively imitating the work of another.

● When is PI proper to be granted? The grant depends chiefly on the

extent of doubt on the validity of the copyright, existence of infringement,
and the damages sustained by such infringement.

In this case:

● Ong failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to be granted the

WPI, thus, the WPI must be set aside.

Doctrine

5. Sambar vs. Levi Strauss

Case Name Sambar v. Levi Strauss & Co., GR 132604, 6 March 2002, Second Division,
Quisumbing [J]

Topic

Summary ● Arcuate design of Levi’s allegedly being used by Europress Jeans.

Facts

● This case involves the arcuate design of Levi’s on the back pocket of its
jeans, allegedly being used by Europress as advertised by CVSGE.

● Allegations of Levi’s –
○ It is an internationally known clothing manufacturer that owns the
arcuate design trademark that is also registered in the US and in
the Ph.
○ It granted a non-exclusive license to LSPI to manufacture and sell
its jeans, etc.
○ REGISTERED TRADEMARK IN THE PH - 1973
○ CVSGE, without the consent and authority of private respondents
and in infringement and unfair competition, sold and advertised,
and despite demands to cease and desist, continued to
 manufacture, sell and advertise denim pants under the brand name
"Europress" with back pockets bearing a design similar to the
arcuate trademark of Levi’s
○ A market research among 600 respondents showed that the
consumers who bought the Europress jeans and mistook it for
Levi’s.

● Sambar interposed that he is not connected with CVSGE and he alleged

that he has the design copyrighted. However, he did not authorize
anyone to use it.
○ Re infringement – He said that he did not infringe on private
respondents’ arcuate design because there was no colorable
imitation which deceived or confused the public.

○ Although the back pocket designs had similarities, the public was
not confused because Levi’s jeans had other marks not found in
Europress jeans. Further, he says Levi’s long history and popularity
made its trademark easily identifiable by the public.

● NOTE: The cancellation of petitioner’s copyright was justified because

petitioner’s copyright can not prevail over respondents’ registration in the
Principal Register of Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology
Transfer.

● RTC – issued WPI enjoining CVSGE/IC and Sambar from manufacturing,

advertising and selling pants with the arcuate design on their back
pockets.
○ RTC made the PI permanent and ordered the petitioners to pay
Levi’s.

Did CVSGE and/or Sambar infringe on the copyright of Levi’s? YES. The SC
did not disturb the CA’s findings here that there is infringement because of the
similarities in the designs.

Was the cancellation of Sambar’s copyright proper? YES, because it was not
original nor created by the author through his own skill, labor and judgment,
without directly copying or evasively imitating the work of another.
● Here, there are similarities between the two designs. Thus, negating
originality.

● The cancellation of petitioner’s copyright was justified because

petitioner’s copyright can not prevail over respondents’ registration
in the Principal Register of Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and
Technology Transfer.

● Consequently, on the matter of damages, Levi’s is ENTITLED THERETO,

except for nominal damages combined with temperate damages.

○ Dapat temperate damages lang. → For although the exact amount of

damage or loss can not be determined with reasonable certainty, the fact
 that there was infringement means they suffered losses for which they are
entitled to moderate damages.

Doctrine

6. NBI - Microsoft vs. Hwang

Case Name NBI - Microsoft Corporation v. Hwang, GR 147043, 21 June 2005, First Division,
Carpio [J]

Topic Copyright infringement and unfair competition

Summary ● Computer software

Facts

● This case stemmed from a licensing agreement entered into by Microsoft

and Beltron, wherein Microsoft authorized Beltron to:
○ reproduce and install no more than one (1) copy of [Microsoft]
software on each Customer System hard disk or Read Only
Memory ("ROM"); and
○ distribute directly or indirectly and license copies of the Product
(reproduced as per Section 2(a)(i) and/or acquired from Authorized
Replicator or Authorized Distributor) in object code form to end
users.

● Subsequently, Microsoft terminated the agreement due to Beltron’s non-

payment of royalties.

● Microsoft learned that respondents were illegally copying and selling

Microsoft software. Thus, they investigated the matter. NBI agents and
representatives of Microsoft posed as buyers of computer hardware from
Beltron. During the transaction, they noticed that:
○ The CPU had Microsoft-installed Windows and software
○ At least two of the CD-ROMs were "installers”
○ They were not given the Microsoft end-user license agreements,
manuals, and registration cards or certificates of authenticity.
○ The receipt issued bore the heading “TMTC Inc. Beltron
Computer”.

● Thus, they applied for search warrants against Beltron. – granted. The NBI
was able to seize several computer-related hardware, software,
accessories, and paraphernalia.
○ On the confiscated 2,831 CD-ROMs, respondents allege that a
certain corporation29 left the CD-ROMs with them for safekeeping.

● The DOJ decided as follows:

○ (1) the "obligations between the parties is civil and not criminal"
 considering that Microsoft merely sought the issuance of Search
Warrants to pressure Beltron to pay its obligation under the
Agreement
○ (2) the validity of Microsoft’s termination of the Agreement must
first be resolved by the "proper court."
○ (3) the DOJ ruled that Microsoft failed to present evidence proving
that what was obtained from respondents were counterfeit
Microsoft products.

Whether there is probable cause that Beltron committed copyright

infringement. (YES, because they exceeded the authority given by Microsoft to
Beltron which is to merely reproduce not more than one copy of the software on
each customer system hard disk or ROM, by mass producing the same
WITHOUT MICROSOFT’S PRIOR AUTHORIZATION.)

● Contrary to the DOJ’s ruling, the gravamen of copyright infringement is

not merely the unauthorized "manufacturing" of intellectual works
but rather the unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered
by Section 5. Hence, any person who performs any of the acts under
Section 5 without obtaining the copyright owner’s prior consent
renders himself civilly and criminally liable for copyright
infringement.

● PIRACY – Infringement of a 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.

● Here, Beltron’s rights were limited to:

○ the "reproduc[tion] and install[ation of] no more than one copy of
[Microsoft] software on each Customer System hard disk or Read
Only Memory ("ROM")"; and
○ the "distribut[ion] xxx and licens[ing of] copies of the [Microsoft]
Product [as reproduced above] and/or acquired from Authorized
Replicator or Authorized Distributor) in object code form to end
users."

● However, neither does it appear nor was alleged that the 2k plus CD-
ROMs were acquired from Microsoft-accredited distributors or
replicators. Instead, what the respondents allege is that the CDs were
left to them for safekeeping, however, this is not substantiated.

Whether there is probable cause that Beltron committed unfair competition.

(YES, because the packaging of the CD-ROMs being sold by Beltron were
similar, as well as the content itself. This shows the intent to deceive.)

● UNFAIR COMPETITION - Elements: Article 189(1) RPC

○ the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the
 goods of another manufacturer or dealer
○ he general appearance is shown in the (1) goods themselves, or in
the (2) wrapping of their packages, or in the (3) device or words
therein, or in (4) any other feature of their appearance
○ the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other
persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose
○ there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor. → The
element of intent to deceive may be inferred from the similarity of the
goods or their appearance.

● Here, from the pictures of the CD-ROMs’ packaging, one cannot

distinguish them from the packaging of CD-ROMs containing genuine
Microsoft software. Such replication, coupled with the similarity of content
of these fake CD-ROMs and the CD-ROMs with genuine Microsoft
software, implies intent to deceive.

Additional notes:

● Microsoft did not commit forum shopping because its appeals have
different subject matters: 1) one is for the RTC’s orders quashing the
search warrants; and 2) another is for the dismissal of its complaint by the
DOJ.

Doctrine

7. Manly Sportwear vs. Dadodette

Case Name Manly Sportwear Manufacturing Inc. v. Dadodette Enterprises, GR 165306, 20
September 2005, First Division, Ynares-Santiago [J]

Topic Originality; quashal of SW issued to search for and seize allegedly infringing
works

Summary ● Sportswear

Facts

● This case stemmed from the issuance of a SW for the seizure of goods in
Dadodette’s possession which are allegedly products of Manly. This SW
was granted, but thereafter quashed.

● In its motion to quash the SW, Dadodette alleged that the sporting goods
manufactured by and/or registered in the name of MANLY are ordinary
and common hence, not among the classes of work protected under
Section 172 of RA 8293.

● RTC - quashed the SW, finding in favor of Dadodette.

○ MANLY’s certificates of registrations were issued only in 2002,
 whereas there were certificates of registrations for the same sports
articles which were issued earlier than MANLY’s, thus further
negating the claim that its copyrighted products were original
creations.

Were Manly’s sporting goods not original? (NO, they were not original
because the copyrighted products do not appear to be original creations of
MANLY and are not among the classes of work enumerated under Section
172 of RA 8293 (NOT ORIGINAL). Thus, are not covered by copyright.)

The SC added:

● The trial court’s finding that the seized products are not copyrightable was
merely preliminary as it did not finally and permanently adjudicate on the
status and character of the seized items. MANLY could still file a separate
copyright infringement suit against the respondents because the order for
the issuance or quashal of a warrant is not res judicata.

● The copyright certificates issued in favor of MANLY constitute merely

prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. However, no presumption
of validity is created where other evidence exist that may cast doubt on the
copyright validity. Hence, where there is sufficient proof that the
copyrighted products are not original creations but are readily available in
the market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality will
not be presumed and the trial court may properly quash the issued warrant
for lack of probable cause.

● Note: The registration and deposit of the work is purely for recording the
date of registration and deposit of the work and shall not be conclusive as
to copyright ownership or the term of the copyrights or the rights of the
copyright owner, including neighboring rights.

○ At most, 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.

Doctrine

**8. ABS-CBN vs. Philippine Multimedia System, Inc.

Case Name ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Philippine Multi-Media System Inc., GRs
175769-70, 19 January 2009, First Division, Ynares-Santiago [J]

Topic Copyrights of broadcasting organizations; limitations; rebroadcasting vs.

retransmission
Summary ● Broadcasting and rebroadcasting of ABS-CBN Channels 2 and 23.

Facts

● This case involves ABS-CBN and Philippine Multimedia System (PMSI),

wherein ABS sought to enjoin PMSI from rebroadcasting its Channels 2
and 23 as part of its program line-up for its DTH satellite service.

● Here, PMSI was granted a legislative franchise to maintain a DTH satellite

service and when it commenced its operations, it offered, among others,
ABS-CBN channels 2 and 23, as part of its program line-up.

● In response to ABS’s demand, PMSI alleged that the rebroadcasting was

in accordance with the authority granted it by NTC and its obligation under
NTC Memorandum Circular No. 4-08-88 which requires all cable television
system operators operating in a community within Grade “A” or “B”
contours to carry the television signals of the authorized television
broadcast stations (must-carry rule).

● Subsequently, ABS filed a complaint for broadcasting and copyright

infringement against PMSI for unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2
and 23. (IPO-BLA)
○ ABS was able to secure a TRO against PMSI (from IPO-BLA)

● PMSI suspended its retransmission of the channels, but it was being

required by the NTC to retransmit the said channels pursuant to the NTC
MC. (Naiipit si Dream between ABS/IPO and NTC)

● Meanwhile, BLA found that PMSI had infringed on the copyrights of ABS,
ordering it to permanently cease and desist from rebroadcasting Channels
2 and 23.
○ PMSI appealed this – CA granted, the BLA decision was set aside.

● ABS Contentions:
○ PMSI’s unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is an
infringement of its broadcasting rights and copyright
○ CA’s interpretation of the must-carry rule is violative of Article III,
Section 9 of the 1987 Consti
○ Constitution because it allows the taking of property for public use
without payment of just compensation

Whether PMSI violated the broadcasting right and copyright of ABS-CBN.

(NO, because:
1. PMSI is not a broadcasting organization;
2. PMSI is not engaged in broadcasting or rebroadcasting, rather what it is
doing is merely retransmission; and
3. Considering that the rights of a broadcasting organization does NOT
 EXTEND to retransmission.
4. The retransmission by PMSI is under the direction or control of the
Government (S184.1(h))
5. Relative to No. 4, PMSI is covered by the MC because, while it only directs
“all cable TVs..to carry TV signals…”, it also covers DTH TV (that operated
by PMSI) as their operation is similar, except for the medium.

● Broadcasting - (S202.7) - two means

1) transmission by wireless means for the public reception of
sounds or of images or of representations thereof;

2) transmission by satellite for the public reception of sounds or of

images or of representations thereof where the means for
decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting
organization or with its consent.

ELEMENTS OF NUMBER 2:
a) transmission of sounds or images or of representations
thereof
b) through satellite
c) for public reception
d) means for decrypting are provided to the public by the
broadcasting organization or with its consent

- Transmission here presupposes that the origin of the signals is the

broadcaster. Hence, a program that is broadcasted is attributed to the
broadcaster. In the same manner, the rebroadcasted program is attributed
to the rebroadcaster.

● Rebroadcasting - (Art. 3(g) 1961 Rome Convention or the International

Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms
and Broadcasting Organizations - the simultaneous broadcasting by
one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another
broadcasting organization. (KD: It is important that the one broadcasting is
itself a BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION.)

● Sec. 211. Scope of Right. - Subject to the provisions of Section 212,

broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right to carry
out, authorize or prevent any of the following acts: 211.1. The
rebroadcasting of their broadcasts;

● Section 177 of the IP Code - Copyright or economic rights shall consist of

the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the public
performance of the work (Section 177.6), and other communication to the
public of the work (Section 177.7).

● S184 Limitations on copyright - 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of

 Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
x x x x (h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control
of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or
professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is
compatible with fair use.

Discussion on the nature of broadcasting:

● When a broadcaster transmits, the signals are scattered or dispersed in

the air. Anybody may pick-up these signals. There is no restriction as to its
number, type or class of recipients. To receive the signals, one is not
required to subscribe or to pay any fee. One only has to have a receiver,
and in case of television signals, a television set, and to tune-in to the right
channel/frequency. Apparently, the undiscriminating dispersal of signals in
the air is possible only through wireless means. The use of wire in
transmitting signals, such as cable television, limits the recipients to those
who are connected. Unlike wireless transmissions, in wire-based
transmissions, it is not enough that one wants to be connected and
possesses the equipment.

In this case:

1. Broadcasting organizations as “entities that take the financial and editorial

responsibility for the selection and arrangement of, and investment in, the
transmitted content.

● Here, PMSI would not qualify as a broadcasting organization because it

does not have the aforementioned responsibilities imposed upon
broadcasting organizations, such as ABS-CBN.

2. PMSI is not the origin nor does it claim to be the origin of the programs
broadcasted by ABS. It did not make and transmit on its own but merely
carried the existing signals of ABS. ABS-CBN creates and transmits its
own signals; PMSI merely carries such signals which the viewers receive
in its unaltered form. PMSI does not produce, select, or determine the
programs to be shown in Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does not pass
itself off as the origin or author of such programs. Insofar as Channels 2
and 23 are concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in accordance
with Memorandum Circular 04-08-88. With regard to its premium channels,
it buys the channels from content providers and transmits on an as-is
basis to its viewers. Clearly, PMSI does not perform the functions of a
broadcasting organization; thus, it cannot be said that it is engaged
in rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.

3. PMSI’s services fall under RETRANSMISSION as described in the

Working Paper1. → Simultaneous retransmission of signals received from cable
operators, in unaltered form, to subscribers through cable or wire.

1 The Working Paper prepared by the Secretariat of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related
Rights under the 1961 Rome Convention.
4. The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the
Government is among the limitations on copyright, such that it will NOT
constitute copyright infringement.

● The carriage of ABS-CBN’s signals by virtue of the must-carry rule in

Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 is under the direction and control of
the government though the NTC which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction
to supervise, regulate and control telecommunications and broadcast
services/facilities in the Philippines.

○ Rationale of the “must-carry rule”: To prevent a situation whereby

station owners and a few networks 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 the petitioner, private respondent
and other TV station owners, shall provide at all times sound and
balanced programming and assist in the functions of public
information and education.

● PMSI is NOT airing the channels for profit – No payment is required to

view the said channels because these broadcasting networks do not
generate revenue from subscription from their viewers but from airtime
revenue from contracts with commercial advertisers and producers, as
well as from direct sales.

○ It does not advertise itself as a local channel carrier because these

local channels (ABS, GMA, RPN, ABC, IBC) can be viewed with or
without DTH television.
○ In fact, the carriage of ABS’s channels by PMSI is advantageous to
it because it increases its ratings and audience share which helps it
to secure more commercial advertisers and producers.

● As a national broadcasting organization, one of ABS-CBN’s

responsibilities is to scatter its signals to the widest area of coverage as
possible. That it should limit its signal reach for the sole purpose of gaining
profit for its regional stations undermines public interest and deprives the
viewers of their right to access to information.

5. PMSI’s DTH TV coverage is covered by the NTC MC, because it requires

all cable television system operators operating in a community within
Grade “A” or “B” contours to carry the television signals of the authorized
television broadcast stations.

● The policy of the MC is to carry improved signals in remote areas for the
good of the general public and to promote dissemination of information. In
line with this policy, it is clear that DTH television should be deemed
covered by the MC, although it only mentioned “cable television”, as
DTH and cable TV differ only in the medium of delivering such
 services.

Doctrine As stated above.

9. ABS-CBN vs. Gozon

Case Name ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon, GR 195956, 11 March 2015, Second Division,
Leonen [J]

Topic Copyrightable material – news story rebroadcasted live

Summary ● GMA’s live rebroadcasting of a news story covered by ABS-CBN -

homecoming of OFW who was a hostage victim.
● There was no “No Access Philippines” notice.
● 1 ½ mins air time

Facts

● The controversy arose from GMA-7’s news coverage on the homecoming

of Filipino overseas worker and hostage victim Angelo dela Cruz.

● ABS-CBN "conducted live audio-video coverage of and broadcasted his

arrival at the NAIA and the subsequent press conference. ABS-CBN
allowed Reuters Television Service (Reuters) to air the footage it had
taken earlier under a special embargo agreement.
○ Under the special embargo agreement, any of the footage it took
would be for the "use of Reuter’s international subscribers only,
and shall be considered and treated by Reuters under ‘embargo’
against use by other subscribers in the Philippines. . . . [N]o other
Philippine subscribers of Reuters would be allowed to use ABS-
CBN footage without the latter’s consent.

● GMA-7 subscribes to both Reuters and Cable News Network (CNN). It

received a live video feed of the coverage of Angelo dela Cruz’s
arrival from Reuters.
○ GMA-7 immediately carried the live news feed in its program "Flash
Report," together with its live broadcast. (5-second footage)
Allegedly, GMA-7 did not receive any notice or was not aware that
Reuters was airing footage of ABS-CBN. GMA-7’s news control
room staff saw neither the "No Access Philippines" notice nor
a notice that the video feed was under embargo in favor of
ABS-CBN.

● Thus, ABS filed a complaint for copyright infringement against GMA.

○ The DOJ (Gonzalez) reversed the Prosec’s resolution that there is
probable cause, ruling that GOOD FAITH may be raised as a
defense in the case.
○ The DOJ (Agra) held that GF is only a disputable presumption.
 hus, a full-blown trial is the proper venue where facts, issues and
laws are evaluated and considered.

1. Whether news footage is copyrightable. (YES, because the news

footage itself, NOT THE NEWS, is an expression of such news of the
day, which underwent a creative process.)
- News of the day – IDEA; news footage (edited, etc.) -
EXPRESSION of the idea

● Under the Code, "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."These include "[a]audiovisual works and
cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings."

● It is true that under Section 175 of the Intellectual Property Code, "news of
the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items
of press information" are considered unprotected subject matter. However,
the Code does not state that expression of the news of the day,
particularly when it underwent a creative process, is not entitled to
protection. An idea or event must be distinguished from the expression of
that idea or event. An idea has been likened to a ghost in that it "must be
spoken to a little before it will explain itself."84 It is a concept that has
eluded exact legal definition.

● American jurisprudence – copyright protection does not extend to news

"events" or the facts or ideas which are the subject of news reports;
copyright protection does extend to the reports themselves, as
distinguished from the substance of the information contained in the
reports; Copyright protects the manner of expression of news reports, "the
particular form or collocation of words in which the writer has
communicated it."

2. Did GMA-7 infringed on the copyright of ABS-CBN?

Rights of broadcasting organizations: (S211)

a) Rebroadcasting of their broadcasts
b) Recording of their broadcasts for communication to the public of TV
broadcasts
c) Use of such records for fresh transmissions or for fresh recording

Limitations on copyright of broadcasting organization (S212)

a) Use by a natural person exclusively for his own personal purposes
b) Using short excerpts for reporting current events
c) Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scientific research
d) Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions under Section 185

● News as expressed in a video footage is entitled to copyright protection.

Broadcasting organizations have not only copyright on but also
neighboring rights over their broadcasts. Copyrightability of a work is
 different from fair use of a work for purposes of news reporting.

In this case:

● ABS-CBN has a copyright over the news footage. Thus, for airing the
video feed, GMA is liable for copyright infringement.

Was there fair use? NO, because the novelty of the news report was affected
when GMA-7 aired the same for 1 ½ minutes - a substantial portion of the
footage.

● One of the limitations in copyright as provided in S212.2 an S212.4 (not

amended) IP Code are: (S212.2)Using short excerpts for reporting current
events and (S212.4) Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions
under Section 185.

● Fair use – a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable

manner without the consent of the CR owner or as copying the theme or
ideas rather than their expression. It is an exception to the copyright
owner’s monopoly of the use of the work to avoid stifling "the very
creativity which that law is designed to foster.

● 4-FACTOR TEST In determining fair use, the ff must be considered:

1. Purpose and character of use – commercial or non-commercial?

■ It must be for: criticism | comment | news reporting |
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) |
scholarship | research | and similar purposes.

■ Aka “Transformative test” – whether the copy of the work

adds "new expression, meaning or message" to transform it
into something else.
● Meta-use" can also occur without necessarily
transforming the copyrighted work used.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work – If the nature of the work is

more factual than creative, then fair use will be weighed in favor of
the user.

3. Amount and substantial of the person used in relation to the

copyrighted work as a whole. [Here, GMA used a substantial
portion of the footage]

● An exact reproduction of a copyrighted work, compared to a

small portion of it, can result in the conclusion that its use is
not fair.

● There may also be cases where, though the entirety of the

copyrighted work is used without consent, its purpose
determines that the usage is still fair.
 4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work – if the use had or will have a negative impact
on the copyrighted work’s market, then the use is deemed unfair.

● In the business of television news reporting, the nature of the copyrighted

work or the video footage, are such that, footage created, must be a
novelty to be a good report.

● The primary reason for copyrighting newscasts by broadcasters would

seem to be to prevent competing stations from rebroadcasting current
news from the station with the best coverage of a particular news item,
thus misappropriating a portion of the market share.

3. Does good faith negate criminal prosecution for infringement of

copyrightable material? Is lack of knowledge that a material is
copyrighted is a defense against copyright infringement? NO,
because infringement is a malum prohibitum as the IP Code is a special
law, where malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial; nonetheless,
good faith may be the basis of lowering the penalty to not more than
P10,000.00.

4. Should GMA-7’s officers and EEs [respondents] be held liable for

infringement? NO, except for dela Pena and Manalastas, because the IP
Code does not expressly provide direct liability of the corporate officers
and the prosecutor failed to prove that the respondent officers did the acts
or contributed in a meaningful way in the commission of the infringement.
a. Active participation requires a showing of overt physical acts or
intention to commit such acts.

● Here, THERE IS IN FACT NOTICE that the source of the footage is ABS-
CBN and that there is a notice of “No Access Philippines” which dela Pena
and Manalastas neglected to relay to the members of GMA’s Board, thus
causing the infringement.

Doctrine

10. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Inc. vs.

Andrey, Inc.
Case Name Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Inc. v. Anrey Inc., GR
233918, 9 August 2022, En Banc, Zalameda [J]

Topic Public performance of copyrighted music

Summary ● Supposed right of FILSCAP to collect license fees over public performance
of copyrighted works of its member artists.
● FILSCAP is like an agency for the artists, etc so that their copyrights can be truly
enforced and upheld. How does it work? → Copyright holders assign their rights
to FILSCAP and the latter enters into reciprocal agreements with foreign societies.
○ Being an assignee, it collects royalties through the form of license
fees from anyone who intends to publicly play, broadcast, stream,
and to an extent reproduce the music. In return, FILSCAP will
make an accounting of all the fees collected and then distribute
them to its members.

Facts:

● This case stemmed from the assessment for license fees by FILSCAP
against Anrey, for its public performance of songs of FILSCAP’s member-
artists, in the absence of license from FILSCAP.

● After their demand letters were ignored by Anrey, FILSCAP filed a

complaint for Copyright Infringement against Anrey. For its part, Anrey
denied playing the alleged songs and that they only play what songs were
being played on the radio they are tuned in. As such, Anrey alleged, the
radio station/s already paid FILSCAP for such music and it will be
recovering twice if Anrey is demanded to pay.
○ Anrey added that assuming the reception is a performance, it is not
for customers, but only for its staff.

● RTC - dismissed the complaint. Basis: S184(i) of RA 8293 which exempts

public performances by a club or institution for charitable or educational
purposes provided that they are not profit making and do not charge
admission fees.

● CA - denied FILSCAP’s petition.

○ CA applied the “Homestyle and Business Exemptions” prevailing in the
US → this allows small business establishments to use TV or radio sets
within its premises subject to certain conditions:
■ 3,750 sq.ft. or larger - must secure license (Page 6)

Whether the unlicensed playing of radio broadcasts as background music in

dining areas of a restaurant amounts to copyright infringement. (YES,
because although the radio station has already acquired a license to play the
record, the restaurant should have secured its own license for the reproduction of
the waves from the station, as these are distinct and separate matters, which are
also subject of separate protection based on the doctrine of multiple
performances)

Discussions:

● Elements of copyright infringement

1) Show ownership of a valid copyright; – YES, FILSCAP has the
right to sue for copyright infringement, based on its being an
 assignee of the artists copyrights and the collection of
royalties/license fees
2) Demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one
economic right granted to copyright holders under S177 of the IP
Code.
3) (Optional) The act complained of must not fall under any of the
limitations on copyright under S184 of the IPC or amounts to fair
use.

● Social function of IP - property has not only an individual function, insofar

as it has to provide for the needs of the owner, but also a social function
insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the other members of society.
Police power proceeds from the principle that every holder of property,
however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the
implied liability that his use of it shall not be injurious to the right of the
community.
○ S13, Art. XIV 1987 Consti
○ Under the IP Code - Social function of IP is to promote the diffusion
of knowledge and information for the promotion of national
development and progress and the common good.

1. Radio reception is a performance –

- A sound recording is publicly performed if it is made audible

enough at a place/s where persons outside the normal circle of a
family, and that family’s closest social acquaintance, are or can be
present.
- It is performance based on US jurisprudence.
- BUT IS RADIO RECEPTION A PUBLIC PERFORMANCE?

2. Radio reception creates a copyrightable performance separate from

the broadcast; doctrine of multiple performances –

- Doctrine of multiple performance provides that a radio or TV

transmission or broadcast can create multiple performances at
once.
→ In the case of SCOTUS, the Am SC held that the playing of a record is
a performance; and the reproduction of the radio waves into audible sound
waves is also a performance.

- Therefore, on whether reception of a broadcast may be publicly

performed, it is immaterial if the broadcasting station has been
licensed by the copyright owner because the reception becomes a
new public performance requiring separate protection.

3. Playing of radio broadcasts containing sound recordings through the

use of loudspeakers amounts to an unauthorized communication of
such copyrighted music to the public.

- “New public” - this means that when the copyright owner grants
 license to a radio station, it necessarily implies that its reception by
the public has been consented to by the CR owners; however, the
author normally thinks of the license to broadcast as to cover only
the direct audience receiving the signal within the family circle; and
that any further communication of the reception creates, by legal
fiction, a “new public” which the author never contemplated when
he authorized its use in the initial communication to the public.

4. Public performance vs. other communication to the public of the

work (per the Berne Convention)

- Public performance – includes broadcasting of the work and specifically

covers the use of loudspeakers → Anrey violated the right to public
performance of FILSCAP.

- Anrey did not violate FILSCAP’s right to communicate to the public.

→ Communication to the public → this right means the making of a work
available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way that
members of the public may access these works from a place and time
individually chosen by them.
- “Other” - refers to means other than the traditional means
such as radio or loudspeakers.

5. Anrey’s communication to the public of the subject music was not

covered by any of the exempted circumstances under the IP Code.

- Here, the RTC considered Anrey exempt because it does not

charge admission fees. However, this is incorrect because this only
applies to institutions for charitable and educational purposes.

- Here, the CA considered Anrey exempt because it is a small

business establishment. However, this instance is only an
exemption based on US law and jurisprudence which do not
extend to cases in the Philippines.

6. Radio reception transmitted through loudspeakers to enhance profit

does not constitute, and is not analogous to, fair use.

- Here, the public performances of the works were not done privately
or made strictly for charitable or religious institution or society; for
information purposes; etc. Instead, the works were transmitted
through loudspeakers within Anrey’s restaurants which are
commercial establishments open to the public. While Anrey does
not directly charge a fee for playing radio broadcasts over its
speakers, such reception is clearly done to enhance profit by
providing entertainment to the public, who pay for the dining
experience in Anrey’s restaurants. Further, these speakers and
radio reception were part of its expenses. It would not put up with
this if not to enhance the overall ambiance and dining experience
in its establishments, all for the purpose of economic gain.
 Notes:
● Copyright protects the form of expression of ideas; the creativity in choice
and arrangement of words, musical notes, colors, shapes, etc.

● Additional: US jurisprudence - factors in determining fair use

○ Fair use - is it for personal and noncommercial or non-profit use?
○ Distinction between copyrights that have a functional purpose
against the creative and artistic types.
○ Whether the unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort
engaged in by the defendant would result in a substantially adverse
impact on the potential market for the original.

In this case:

● The free use by commercial establishments of radio broadcasts is beyond

the normal exploitation of the copyright holder’s work.

Doctrine
11. Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, Inc.
Case Name Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, Inc. (G.R. No. 172835
December 13, 2007)

Topic Trade secrets

Summary
Facts:

● This case stemmed from the contract between Air Ph and Pennswell
wherein Pennswell sold and delivered to Air Ph sundry goods. It
appears here that after delivery of the goods, Air Ph failed to pay
Pennswell. Thus, the latter filed a complaint for sum of money.

● Air Ph countered that its refusal to pay was due to the fact that the
items were misrepresented by respondent as belonging to a new line,
but were in truth and in fact, identical with products petitioner had
previously purchased from Pennswell. Air Ph asserted that it was
deceived by respondent which merely altered the names and labels of
such goods.

● During the course of the proceedings, Air Ph moved for the court to
require Pennswell to give it a list of the ingredients of the products that
it delivered: (a) Contact Grease and Connector Grease; (b) Thixohtropic
Grease and Di-Electric Strength Protective Coating; and (c) Dry
Lubricant and Anti-Seize Compound.
○ RTC granted the motion.

● Pennswell sought reconsideration and argued that what petitioner

endeavored to inquire upon constituted a trade secret which respondent
cannot be forced to divulge. Respondent maintained that its products
are specialized lubricants, and if their components were revealed, its
business competitors may easily imitate and market the same types of
products, in violation of its proprietary rights and to its serious damage
and prejudice.
○ Based on this, RTC reversed its decision.

● CA upheld RTC. Thus, this petition.

○ Air Philippines argues that the use of modes of discovery
operates with desirable flexibility under the discretionary control
of the trial court. Furthermore, petitioner posits that its request is
not done in bad faith or in any manner as to annoy, embarrass,
or oppress the respondent.

Whether Pennswell may be compelled to divulge the ingredients of its

products, apparently to determine whether it merely changed the label of
the products and that the components thereof are identical with the old
products being used by Air Philippines. (NO, because the said
ingredients are TRADE SECRETS.)
- The chemical composition of Pennswell’s products are trade secrets
because:
1. Pennswell is engaged in the business of general manufacturing
and selling of, and to deal in, distribute, sell or otherwise
dispose of industrial chemicals, solvents, lubricants, acids,
alkalies, salts, paints, oils, varnishes, colors, pigments and
similar preparations, among others.
2. In the creation of its lubricants, Pennswell expended efforts,
skills, research, and resources.
3. The ingredients constitute the very fabric of the respondent's
production and business. No doubt, the information is also
valuable to respondent’s competitors.To compel its disclosure is
to cripple respondent’s business, and to place it at an undue
disadvantage.
4. The information grants it a competitive advantage
5. There is clearly a glaring intent on the part of the respondent to
keep the information confidential and not available to the prying
public.

Discussion ono trade secrets:

● Trade secret –
○ a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to
its owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to
confide it
○ secret formula or process not patented, but known only to
certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade
having a commercial value

● Trade secret may consist of: Any formula, pattern, device, or

compilation of information that:
a) is used in one's business
b) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
competitors who do not possess the information

● Nature of trade secrets – trade secrets constitute proprietary rights.

The inventor, discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or similar
innovation has rights therein which may be treated as property, and
ordinarily an injunction will be granted to prevent the disclosure of the
trade secret by one who obtained the information "in confidence" or
through a "confidential relationship."

Factors in determining whether an information is a trade secret:

1) extent to which the information is known outside of the employer's

business
2) extent to which the information is known by employees and others
involved in the business
 3) extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of
the information
4) value of the information to the employer and to competitors
5) amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the
information
6) extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained
through an independent source

● Re unauthorized disclosure by EE of ER’s trade secrets – any

determination by management as to the confidential nature of
technologies, processes, formulae or other so-called trade secrets must
have a substantial factual basis which can pass judicial scrutiny. The
Court rejected the employer’s naked contention that its own
determination as to what constitutes a trade secret should be binding
and conclusive upon the NLRC. The SC held that to rule otherwise, this
would permit an employer to label almost anything a trade secret, and
thereby create a weapon with which he/it may arbitrarily dismiss an
employee on the pretext that the latter somehow disclosed a trade
secret, even if in fact there be none at all to speak of.

Legal bases regarding the rule on non-disclosure of trade secrets:

1. Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) – the court may
issue an order to protect trade secrets or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information belonging to the debtor.
2. RPC – Penalized acts:
a. Revealing secrets with abuse of office (A291)
b. Revelation of industrial secrets (A292)
3. NIRC - Procuring unlawful divulgence of trade secrets
4. Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of
1990 – limitation on public access to information involving the chemical
substances and mixtures

● Based on these, it can be concluded that intellectual and industrial

property rights cases are not simple property cases.

Re R27 of ROC re modes of discovery

● The production or inspection of documents or things as a mode of

discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court may be availed of by any
party upon a showing of good cause therefor before the court in which
an action is pending.

● Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents, papers,

books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things that
may be produced and inspected should not be privileged. The
documents must not be privileged against disclosure.

● R130, S24 provides for disqualifications by reason of privileged

information. However, there are those instances not specifically
 mentioned but are considered privileged: (a) editors may not be
compelled to disclose the source of published news; (b) voters may not
be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade secrets; (d)
information contained in tax census returns; and (d) bank deposits.

→ Air Philippines cannot compel Pennswell to divulge the chemical components of its
products based on S77 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines because while it is true
that all consumer products domestically sold, whether manufactured locally or
imported, shall indicate their general make or active ingredients in their respective
labels of packaging, its specialized lubricants are NOT CONSUMER PRODUCTS.

● Here, "Consumer products," as it is defined in Article 4(q), refers to

goods, services and credits, debts or obligations which are primarily for
personal, family, household or agricultural purposes, which shall
include, but not be limited to, food, drugs, cosmetics, and devices. This
is not the nature of respondent’s products. Its products are not intended
for personal, family, household or agricultural purposes. Rather, they
are for industrial use, specifically for the use of aircraft propellers
and engines.

→ These products are also not covered by the Special Law on Counterfeit drugs which
requires the disclosure of the active ingredients of a drug, because Pennswell’s
products are not considered as drugs.

● Trade secrets should receive greater protection from discovery,

because they derive economic value from being generally unknown and
not readily ascertainable by the public.

Doctrines

**12. Olano vs. Lim Eng

Case Name Olano v. Lim Eng Co, GR 195835, 14 March 2016, Third Division, Reyes [J]

Topic

Summary ● This case involves design for hatch doors created by LEC.
○ The drawings were not reproduced.

Whether there was copyright infringement. (NO, because LEC's copyright

protection covered only the hatch door sketches/drawings and not the
actual hatch door they depict.)

● Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the statute
confers. It may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the
subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in
the statute. Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the
statutory enumeration or description.
 ● "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art
disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea — not
the idea itself."

1. Ownership of validly copyrightable material

a. Ownership only pertains to the drawings
b. Copyrightable material – NO, because it is not original, LEC
merely procured and the the locking device in LEC's "hatch
doors" are ordinary drawer locks commonly used in furniture
and office desks
i. it is clear that the hatch doors were not artistic works
within the meaning of copyright laws.

2. Infringement

● Door only or component of a work of architecture.

● How about the design of interior designers?

Doctrines Since the hatch doors cannot be

considered as either illustrations, maps, plans,
sketches, charts and three-dimensional works
relative to geography, topography, architecture
or science, to be properly classified as a
copyrightable class "I" work, what was
copyrighted were their sketches/drawings only,
and not the actual hatch doors themselves. To
constitute infringement, the usurper must have
copied or appropriated the original work of an
author or copyright proprietor, absent copying,
there can be no infringement of copyright.
13. COSAC vs. FILSCAP
Case Name

Topic

Summary ● Off the Grill Bar in QC owned by COSAC plays copyrighted music
without license from FILSCAP.
○ Playing through loudspeakers and live band regularly or every
night.
● Note that FILSCAP is putting the blame on COSAC, not the live band
because allegedly, it is the restaurant that gives the venue and
opportunity, It likewise have control such that if they dont like the song,
they can have it stopped.

Rights infringed:
1. Copyright of owners of musical compositions
2. Rights of performers and producers of sound recordings

Whether COSAC committed copyright infringement. (YES, because it allowed

to be played copyrighted music assigned to FILSCAP without license
therefrom.)
a. Re live band - who is the infringer? The live band or COSAC?

b. Elements of infringement:
i. Ownership of validly copyrighted material by
complainant – FILSCAP, as assignee, is entitled to all
the rights and remedies which the assignor had with
respect to the copyright.

ii. Infringement of copyright by respondent

1. Act of infringement
2. Defendant who committed the act of infringement
a. Primary - directly commit the infringing
acts
b. Secondary - those who induce, materially
contribute to, or benefit from, an infringing
act of another.
i. Inducement theory - when a
person induces the commission of
infringement or persuades another
to commit it, he shall be liable.

ii. Contributory infringement -

person, aware of the infringing
activity, induces, causes or
materially contributes to the
infringing act of another

iii. Vicarious infringement - 2

 elements:
1. Defendant possess right
and ability to supervise the
infringing act
2. Defendant must have an
obvious and direct financial
interest in the exploitation
of copyrighted material.

● Vicarious liability - nakinabang ka sa infringing act

● Direct liability - kapag ikaw mismo gumawa ng infringing acts.
○ Hindi kailangang tied up si primary and secondary infringer.
Hindi accessory si vicarious ng primary. Magkaiba ng elements.
○ Pero kung may EE-ER relationship, pwedeng i-tie up.

[same discussion on concepts as in other FILSCAP case]

- Coverage
- Exemptions
- Fair use

In this case: the playing of the copyrighted works were not covered by the
limitations on copyright or the fair use doctrine. Further, it was done to realize
profits.

● The playing of music in Off the Grill was not done privately
● Establishment is not a charitable or religious institution
● COSAC - primary infringer and also a secondary infringer under the
concept of vicarious infringement. Why? Because as owner of the
restaurant, it allowed the commission of infringing acts when it
permitted musical artists or bands to perform copyrighted music
(secondary) and played sound recordings as background music
(primary).
○ It unduly enriched itself by paving way for additional profit but
without additional expense.

● S177 provides that the CR owner has the exclusive right to carry out,
authorize, or prevent the PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK.

2. Is it required that the deed of assignment/authority be filed with the

National Library? NO, it is only permissible and discretionary, and not a
requirement. It is only for recording purposes.
Doctrines