Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Inc. (plaintiff) vs.

Tan (defendant)

Facts: Plaintiff is allegedly the owner of certain musical compositions. Defendant, on the other hand,
is the owner of a restaurant wherein a combo w/ professional singers is hired to entertain and amuse
customers, and the same plays and sings plaintiffs compositions without the latters permission. It is
now the contention of the plaintiff that they are entitled the payment of license fee for such
infringement, but such demand was ignored, thus, they filed a complaint for infringement of
copyright. Defendant contends that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if
they are copyrighted do not constitute infringement. The lower court favored the defendant. The CA
certified the case to the SC.
Issue: W/N defendant has infringed the copyright law for allowing the combo to sing and play the
copyrighted musical compositions of the plaintiff without prior consent.
Held: Negative.
The playing and singing of the combo in defendants restaurant constituted performance for profit
contemplated by the Copyright Law , nevertheless, Defendants 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.
An intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made in
Manila, or within the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public
property. (Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for thirty
(30) days 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 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10) became popular in radios, juke boxes, etc. long before registration,
etc.
262 SCRA 219 Mercantile Law Intellectual Property Law on Copyright
Requirements Before a Search Warrant May Be Issued in Copyright Cases Piracy
Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Search Warrants
In 1986, the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a warrant against Jose Jinco
(Jingco), owner of Showtime Enterprises for allegedly pirating movies produced and owned
by ColumbiaPictures and other motion picture companies. Jingco filed a motion to quash
the search warrant but the same was denied in 1987. Subsequently, Jinco filed an Urgent
Motion to Lift the Search Warrant and Return the Articles Seized. In 1989, the RTC judge
granted the motion. The judge ruled that based on the ruling in the 1988 case

of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs CA, before a search warrant could be issued in
copyright cases, the master copy of the films alleged to be pirated must be attached in the
application for warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 20th Century Fox ruling may be applied retroactively in this case.
HELD: No. In 1986, obviously the 1988 case of 20 thCentury Fox was not yet promulgated.
The lower court could not possibly have expected more evidence from the VRB and
Columbia Pictures in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and
jurisprudence, then existing and judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of
probable cause.
The Supreme Court also revisited and clarified the ruling in the 20 th Century Fox Case. It is
evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in
copyright infringement cases, the presentation of master tapes of the copyright films is
always necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object evidence, with the merit that in this class
of evidence the ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through demonstration
involving the direct use of the senses of the presiding magistrate. Such auxiliary procedure,
however, does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary evidence, depositions,
admissions or other classes of evidence tending to prove the factum probandum, especially
where the production in court of object evidence would result in delay, inconvenience or
expenses out of proportion to is evidentiary value.
In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding the necessity for the
presentation of the master tapes of the copy-righted films for the validity of search warrants
should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence
of probable cause in copy-right infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true
nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies. An objective and careful reading of
the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was
hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright
infringement cases.

FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR. and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs. HONORABLE RANKLIN

M. DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY
FRANCISCO
FACTS:

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder / grantee of Certificate of

Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired
from 1970 to 1977.
On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to
its certificate of copyright specifying the shows format and style of presentation.
Upon complaint of petitioners, information for violation of PD No. 49 was filed
against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN 9 for airing Its a Date.
It was assigned to Branch 104 of RTC Quezon City.
Zosa sought review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the
Department of Justice.
On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed
the Assistant City Prosecutors findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the
case against private respondents.
Petitioner Joaquin filed motion for reconsideration but such was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether the format or mechanics or petitioners television show is entitled to
copyright protection.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the format of the show is not copyrightable. Sec. 2 of PD No.
49, otherwise known as the Decree on Intellectual Property, enumerates the classes of work
entitled to copyright protection. The provision is substantially the same as Sec. 172 of the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293). The format or mechanics of a
television show is not included in the list of protected works in Sec. 2 of PD No. 49. For this
reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them.
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new 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 person and on terms and
conditions specified in the statute.

The Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPIs copyright covers audio-visual recordings of
each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in PD 49.
The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show.
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is
insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the
determination of the existence of a probable cause.
A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole
spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may
be found by merely describing the general copyright / format of both dating game shows.
PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO vs. FELICIDAD C.
ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC.
G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999
FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued of the book,
College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles was the author of the book
Developing English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the
respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book. Habana et al.
filed an action for damages and injunction, alleging respondents infringement of copyrights,
in violation of P.D. 49. They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially
familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted,
copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET.
On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her own intellectual
creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book and that the similarities
may be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as
guides."
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any liability. Later, the
Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading
Co., Inc. In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial
court's decision.
ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.
HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not
identical with the text of CET. The court finds that respondent Robles' act of 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.
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge
petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an
author's toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate
acknowledgment is injury enough.
Bayanihan Music Philippines, Inc. vs. BMG Records
FACTS:
Private respondent Jose Mari Chan (Chan) entered into a contract with petitioner
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". On the strength of the
abovementioned contracts, Bayanihan applied for and was granted by the National
Library a Certificate of Copyright Registration for each of the two musical
compositions. Apparently, without the knowledge and consent of petitioner
Bayanihan, Chan authorized his co-respondent BMG Records (Pilipinas) [BMG] to
record and distribute the aforementioned musical compositions in a then recently
released album of singer Lea Salonga.In separate letters both dated December 7,
1999, petitioner Bayanihan informed respondents Chan and BMG of its existing
copyrights over the subject musical compositions and the alleged violation of such
right by the two. Demands were made on both to settle the matter with Bayanihan.
However no settlement was reached by the parties.

ISSUE: Does an assignee have a clear right to a writ of preliminary injunction?

RULING: Here, nothing is more evident than the trial court's abiding awareness of
the extremely difficult balancing act it had to perform in dealing with petitioner's
prayer for injunctive reliefs. Conscious, as evidently it is, of the fact that there is
manifest abuse of discretion in the issuance of an injunctive writ if the following
requisites provided for by law are not present: (1) there must be a right in esse or
the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which the injunction
is to be directed is a violation of such right, the trial court threaded the correct path
in denying petitioner's prayer therefor. For, such a writ should only be granted if a
party is clearly entitled thereto.

Unquestionably, respondent Chan, being undeniably the composer and author of

the lyrics of the two (2) songs, is protected by the mere fact alone that he is the
creator thereof, conformably with Republic Act No. 8293. An examination of
petitioner's verified complaint in light of the two (2) contracts sued upon and the
evidence it adduced during the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction,
yields not the existence of the requisite right protectable by the provisional relief
but rather a lingering doubt on whether there is or there is no such right.
Manly Sportwear vs. Dadotte Enterprises 470 SCRA 384 (2005)
Facts:
Special Investigator Salcedo of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied for
a search warrant before the RTC of Quezon City based on the information that
Dadodette Enterprises was in possession of goods, the copyright of which belonged
to Manly Sportswear. After finding reasonable grounds that a violation of Sections
172 and 217 of RA 8293 has been committed, Judge Estrada issued a Search
Warrant. Respondents thereafter moved to quash the search warrant contending
that the sporting goods manufactured by and/or registered in the name of MANLY
are ordinary and common. The trial court granted the motion to quash based on its
finding that the copyrighted products of MANLY do not appear to be original
creations. MANLY filed a petition before the Court of Appeals but the same was
denied because the CA found that the trial court correctly granted the motion to
quash and that its ruling in the ancillary proceeding did not preempt the findings of
the intellectual property court as it did not resolve with finality the status or
character of the seized items.
Issue: Does the quashal of a search warrant constitute res judicata on the issue of
copyright infringement?
Ruling:
The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the trial judges in the
exercise of their judicial function. As such, the power to quash the same also rests
solely with them. After the judge has issued a warrant, he is not precluded to
subsequently quash the same, if he finds upon reevaluation of the evidence that no
probable cause exists. The trial courts 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.

MTRCB v. ABS-CBN and Loren Legarda (2005)Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.ABSCBN aired

Prosti-tuition
, an episode of The InsideStory produced and hosted by Loren Legarda. It depicted
of female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them topay for their tuition
fees and interviewed student prostitutes,pimps, customers and some faculty
members. PhilippineWomens University (PWU) was named as the school of someof
the students involved and the faade of PWU served as thebackground of the
episode. It caused uproar in the PWUcommunity. Dr. Leticia de Guzman (Chancellor
and Trustee of PWU) and PWU Parents and Teachers Association file letter
complaints with petitioner MTRCB, alleging that the episodebesmirched the name of
the PWU and resulted in theharassment of some of its female students.MTRCB Legal
Counsel initiated a formal complaint with theMTRCB Investigating Committee
alleging that respondents:
-did not submit to MTRCB for review-exhibited the same without its permission,
violating Sec. 7of PD 1986 and Sec. 3, Chapter III and Sec. 7, Chapter IVof MTRCB
Rules and RegulationsRespondents:
is a public affairs program,news documentary and socio-political editorial, the airing
of which is protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of
the press. MTRCB has no power, authorityand jurisdiction to impose any form of
prior restraint uponrespondents.MTRCB Investigating Committee ordered
respondents to payP20,000 for non-submission of the program and declared thatall
subsequent programs of the
The Inside Story and all other programs of the ABSCBN Ch 2 of the same category
shall besubmitted to the Board of Review and Approval beforeshowing. On appeal,
the Chairman of MTRCB issued aDecision affirming the ruling of the Investigating
Committee.Respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari with theRTC and
sought to:-declare unconstitutional certain provisions of PD 1986and MTRCB Rules
and Regulations-(alternative) exclude the
The Inside Story from thecoverage of such provisions-annul and set aside MTRCB
Decision and Resolution because they constitute prior restraint on
respondentsexercise of freedom of expression and of the press, and
thoseprovisions do not apply to the The Inside Story because it fallsunder the
category of public affairs program, newsdocumentary or socio-political editorials
governed bystandards similar to those governing newspapers.RTC decided in favor
of ABSCBN:-annulled Decision and Resolution of the MTRCB-declared that assailed
provisions do not cover TheInside Story and other similar programs for beingpublic
affairs programs which can be equated tonewspapersHence, this petition for review
on certiorari by MTRCB.Issue: WON the MTRCB has the power/authority to review
theThe Inside Story prior to its exhibition or broadcast bytelevision.


YESMTRCB/SG: (1) all tv programs including public affairsprograms, news
documentaries or socio-political editorials aresubject to MTRCBs power of review,
(2) tv programs are more accessible to the public than newspapers, thus
liberalregulation cannot apply, (3) power to review tv programs doesnot amount to
prior restraint , (4) Sec. 3(b) of PD 1986 does notviolate respondents constitutional
freedom of expression andof the press.SC: Rule in statutory construction:Ubi lex non
distinguit nec distinguere debemos(where the law does not make anyexception,
courts may not except something therefrom, unlessthere is compelling reason
apparent in the law to justify it).When the law says all television programs, the
word allcovers all tv programs, whether religious, public affairs,
newsdocumentary, etc. SinceThe Inside Story is a tv program, it iswithin the
jurisdiction of the MTRCB over which it has power of review.There also has been no
declaration by the framers of theConstitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has apreferred status. If the SC did not exempt religious programsfrom the
jurisdiction and review power of MTRCB, with morereason, there is no justification to
exempt therefromThe InsideStory . The only exceptions are tv programs imprinted
or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departmentsand agencies, and
newsreels.
WON The Inside Story falls under the category of Newsreels.Respondents: Yes.SC:
NO. It is not defined in PD 1986 but Websters dictionarydefines it as short motion
picture films portraying or dealingwith current events; mostly reenactments of
events that hadalready happened. The MTRCB Rules and Regulations defineit as
straight news reporting, as distinguished from newsanalyses, commentaries and
opinions.
The Inside Story ismore of a public affairs program, a variety of news treatment;
across between pure tv news and news-related commentaries,etc. within MTRCBs
review power.MTRCB did not disapprove or ban the showing of theprogram nor did it
cancel respondents permit. The latter wasmerely penalized for their failure to
submit the program toMTRCB for its review and approval. Therefore, there is noneed
to resolve whether certain provisions of PD 1986 andMTRCB Rules and Regulations
contravene the Constitution.No question involving the constitutionality or validity of
a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the courtunless there is
compliance with the legal requisites for judicialinquiry:-proper party-actual case or
controversy-question raised at the earliest possible opportunity-the decision on the
constitutional or legal questionmust be necessary to the determination of the
caseitself
Petition of MTRCB Granted. RTC Decision Reversed. MTRCBDecision Affirmed.

ABS-CBN vs Philippine Multi-Media System Inc.

FACTS:
Philippine Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) is a signal provider which has cable and satellite services. It is providing its
satellite services through Dream Broadcasting System. PMSI has its Free TV and Premium Channels. The Free TV
includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7 and other local networks. The premium channels include AXN, Jack TV, etc which are paid
by subscribers before such channels can be transmitted as feeds to a subscribers TV set which has been installed
with a Dream satellite.
In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSI for allegedly engaging in rebroadcasting and thereby infringing on ABS-CBNs
copyrights; that the transmission of Channels 2 and 23 to the provinces where these two channels are not usually
shown, altered ABS-CBNs programming for the said provinces. PMSI argued that it is not infringing upon ABS-CBNs
copyrights because it is operating under the Must-Carry Rule outlined in NTC (National Telecommunications
Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88.
ISSUE:
Did PMSIs rebroadcasting of Channel 2 and 23 constitute infringement?
HELD:
No. The Must-Carry Rule under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the limitations on copyright. The Filipino
people must be given wider access to more sources of news, information, education, sports event and
entertainment programs other than those provided for by mass media and afforded television programs to attain a
well informed, well-versed and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The very intent
and spirit of the NTC Circular will prevent a situation whereby station owners and a 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 ABS-CBN, and other TV station owners and even the likes of PMSI, shall provide at all
times sound and balanced programming and assist in the functions of public information and education.
The Must-Carry Rule favors both broadcasting organizations and the public. It prevents cable television companies
from excluding broadcasting organization especially in those places not reached by signal. Also, the rule prevents
cable television companies from depriving viewers in far-flung areas the enjoyment of programs available to city
viewers.