R.A. No.

8293
PART IV
The Law on Copyright

CHAPTER I
Preliminary Provisions

SECTION 171. Definitions. For the purpose of this Act, the following terms
have the following meaning:

"Author" is the natural person who has created the work;

A "collective work" is a work which has been created by two (2) or more
natural persons at the initiative and under the direction of another with
the understanding that it will be disclosed by the latter under his own
name and that contributing natural persons will not be identified;

"Communication to the public" or "communicate to the public" 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;

A "computer" is an electronic or similar device having informationprocessing capabilities, and a "computer program" is a set of
instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form,
which is capable when incorporated in a medium that the computer can
read, of causing the computer to perform or achieve a particular task or
result;

"Public lending" is the transfer of possession of the original or a copy of

a work or sound recording for a limited period, for non-profit purposes,
by an institution the services of which are available to the public, such as
public library or archive;

"Public performance", in the case of a work other than an audiovisual

work, is the recitation, playing, dancing, acting or otherwise performing
the work, either directly or by means of any device or process; in the case
of an audiovisual work, the showing of its images in sequence and the
making of the sounds accompanying it audible; and, in the case of a
sound recording, making the recorded sounds audible at a place or at
places where persons outside the normal circle of a family and that
family's closest social acquaintances are or can be present, irrespective
of whether they are or can be present at the same place and at the same
time, or at different places and/or at different times, and where the
performance can be perceived without the need for communication within
the meaning of Subsection 171.3;

"Published works" means works, which, with the consent of the authors,
are made 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: Provided, That availability of such
copies has been such, as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the
public, having regard to the nature of the work;

"Rental" is the transfer of the possession of the original or a copy of a

work or a sound recording for a limited period of time, for profit-making
purposes;

"Reproduction" is the making of one (1) or more copies of a work or a

sound recording in any manner or form (Sec. 41 (E), P.D. No. 49 a);

10

A "work of applied art" is an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or

incorporated in a useful article, whether made by hand or produced on
an industrial scale;

11

A "work of the Government of the Philippines" is a work created by an

officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its
subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations as a part of his regularly prescribed official
duties.

CHAPTER II
Original Works

SECTION 172. Literary and Artistic Works.

Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are

original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain
protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in
particular:
a Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;
b Periodicals and newspapers;
c

Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral

delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form;
d Letters;
e Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic
works or entertainment in dumb shows;
f

Musical compositions, with or without words;

g Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving,

lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;
h Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture,
whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of
applied art;
i Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional
works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;
j

Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

Photographic works including works produced by a process

analogous to photography; lantern slides;

Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works

produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any
process for making audio-visual recordings;

m Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;

n Computer programs; and
o Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.
2

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. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a) cda

CHAPTER III

Derivative Works

SECTION 173. Derivative Works.

The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright:

a Dramatizations,
translations,
adaptations,
abridgments,
arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works; and
b Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilations of
data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection
or coordination or arrangement of their contents. (Sec. 2, [P] and [Q],
P.D. No. 49)

The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection 173.1 shall
be protected as new works: Provided however, That such new work shall
not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works
employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply any right to such
use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original
works. (Sec. 8, P.D. 49; Art. 10, TRIPS)

SECTION 174. Published Edition of Work. In addition to the right to publish

granted by the author, his heirs, or assigns, the publisher shall have a copyright
consisting merely of the right of reproduction of the typographical arrangement of
the published edition of the work. (n)

CHAPTER IV
Works Not Protected

SECTION 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. Notwithstanding the provisions

of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea,
procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere
data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a
work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere
items of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative or
legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof. (n)

SECTION 176. Works of the Government.

No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the

Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose
as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions
shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and

regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and

dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before
administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of
public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)
2

The author of speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and

dissertations mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall have the
exclusive right of making a collection of his works. (n)

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not

precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by
assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication
by the Government in a public document of any work in which copyright
is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the
copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without
the consent of the copyright owner. (Sec. 9, third par., P.D. No. 49)

CHAPTER V
Copyright or Economic Rights

SECTION 177. Copyright or Economic Rights. Subject to the provisions of

Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to
carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:

177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;

2

Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or

other transformation of the work; aisadc

The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by
sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;

Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic

work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a

compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form,

irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the
subject of the rental; (n)
5

Public display of the original or a copy of the work;

Public performance of the work; and

Other communication to the public of the work. (Sec. 5, P. D. No.

49a)

CHAPTER VI
Ownership of Copyright

SECTION 178. Rules on Copyright Ownership. Copyright ownership shall

be governed by the following rules:

Subject to the provisions of this section, in the case of original literary

and artistic works, copyright shall belong to the author of the work;

In the case of works of joint authorship, the co-authors shall be the

original owners of the copyright and in the absence of agreement, their
rights shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. If, however, a work
of joint authorship consists of parts that can be used separately and the
author of each part can be identified, the author of each part shall be the
original owner of the copyright in the part that he has created;

In the case of work created by an author during and in the course of his
employment, the copyright shall belong to:
a The employee, if the creation of the object of copyright is not a part
of his regular duties even if the employee uses the time, facilities
and materials of the employer.

b The employer, if the work is the result of the performance of his

regularly-assigned duties, unless there is an agreement, express or
implied, to the contrary.
5

In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer

of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of
the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have
ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the
creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary;In the case of
audiovisual work, the copyright shall belong to the producer, the author of
the scenario, the composer of the music, the film director, and the author
of the work so adapted. However, subject to contrary or other stipulations
among the creators, the producer shall exercise the copyright to an
extent required for the exhibition of the work in any manner, except for
the right to collect performing license fees for the performance of musical
compositions, with or without words, which are incorporated into the
work; and

In respect of letters, the copyright shall belong to the writer subject to

the provisions of Article 723 of the Civil Code. (Sec. 6, P.D. No. 49a)

CHAPTER VII
Transfer or Assignment of Copyright

SECTION 180. Rights of Assignee.

180.1.
The copyright may be assigned in whole or in part. Within the
scope of the assignment, the assignee is entitled to all the rights and
remedies which the assignor had with respect to the copyright.
180.2.
The copyright is not deemed assigned inter vivos in whole or in
part unless there is a written indication of such intention.

180.3. The submission of a literary, photographic or artistic work to a

newspaper, magazine or periodical for publication shall constitute only a
license to make a single publication unless a greater right is expressly
granted. If two (2) or more persons jointly own a copyright or any part
thereof, neither of the owners shall be entitled to grant licenses without
the prior written consent of the other owner or owners. (Sec. 15, P.D. No.
49a)

SECTION 181. Copyright and Material Object. The copyright is distinct from the
property in the material object subject to it. Consequently, the transfer or assignment
of the copyright shall not itself constitute a transfer of the material object. Nor shall a
transfer or assignment of the sole copy or of one or several copies of the work imply
transfer or assignment of the copyright. (Sec. 16, P.D. No. 49)

SECTION 182. Filing of Assignment or License. An assignment or exclusive

license may be filed in duplicate with the National Library upon payment of the
prescribed fee for registration in books and records kept for the purpose. Upon
recording, a copy of the instrument shall be returned to the sender with a notation of
the fact of record. Notice of the record shall be published in the IPO Gazette. (Sec. 19,
P.D. No. 49a)

SECTION 183. Designation of Society. The copyright owners or their heirs may
designate a society of artists, writers or composers to enforce their economic rights and
moral rights on their behalf.

CHAPTER VIII
Limitations on Copyright

SECTION 184. Limitations on Copyright.

184.1.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not
constitute infringement of copyright:
a. The recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made
accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made
strictly for a charitable or religious institution or society; (Sec. 10(1), P.D. No.
49)
b. The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with
fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations
from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries:
Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the
work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No. 49)

c. The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles

on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures,
addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public
if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved:
Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 49)
d. The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or
artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography,
cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose;
(Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)
e. The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to
the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of
illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided,
That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are
mentioned;
f. The recording made in schools, universities, or educational institutions of a
work included in a broadcast for the use of such schools, universities or
educational institutions: Provided, That such recording must be deleted
within a reasonable period after they were first broadcast: Provided, further,
That such recording may not be made from audiovisual works which are
part of the general cinema repertoire of feature films except for brief
excerpts of the work;
g. The making of ephemeral recordings by a broadcasting organization by
means of its own facilities and for use in its own broadcast; cdt
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;
i. The public performance or the communication to the public of a work, in a
place where no admission fee is charged in respect of such public
performance or communication, by a club or institution for charitable or

educational purpose only, whose aim is not profit making, subject to such
other limitations as may be provided in the Regulations; (n)
j. Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a
film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other
device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or,
that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or
otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in
title; and
k. Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or
for the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner.
184.2.
The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to
allow the work to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal
exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder's
legitimate interests.

SECTION 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work.

a. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research,
and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation,
which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation
of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an
independently created computer program with other programs may also
constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall includeThe
purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
185.2.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Inc.

G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003
Facts: Pearl & Dean (P&D) is engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units
referred to as light boxes. These units utilize specially printed posters sandwiched
between plastic sheets and illuminated with backlights. It was able to secure registration
over these illuminated display units. The advertising light boxes were marketed under
the trademark Poster Ads.
In 1985, P&D negotiated with defendant Shoemart, Inc. (SMI) for the lease and
installation of the light boxes in SM North Edsa. However, since SM North Edsa was
under construction, SMI offered as alternative SM Makati and Cubao. During the signing
of the Contract, SMI only returned the Contract with SM Makati. Manager of petitioner
reminded SMI that their agreement includes SM Cubao. However, SMI did not bother to
reply. Instead, respondent informed petitioner that they are rescinding the contract for
SM Makati due to non-performance.
Two years later, SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow Advertising to make
the light boxes. These were delivered in a staggered basis and installed at SM
Megamall and SM City. In 1989, petitioner received reports that exact copy of its light
boxes was installed by SMI. It further discovered that North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI),
sister company of SMI, was set up primarily to sell advertising space in lighted display
units located in SMIs different branches. Petitioner sent letters to respondents asking
them to cease using the light boxes and the discontinued use of the trademark Poster
Ads.
Claiming that SMI and NEMI failed to meet its demand, petitioner filed a case for
infringement of trademark and copy right, unfair competition and damages. SMI
maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known

techniques and available technology without notice of or reference to P&Ds copyright.

In addition, it said that registration of Poster Ads obtained by petitioner was only for
stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes and the like. Poster Ads is a generic term
which cannot be appropriated as trademark, and, as such, registration of such mark is
invalid. It also stressed that P&D is not entitled to the reliefs sought because the
advertising display units contained no copyright notice as provided for by law.
RTC found SMI and NEMI jointly and severally liable for infringement of copyright
and trademark. CA reversed saying that it agreed with SMI that what was copyrighted
was the technical drawings only and not the light boxes. Light boxes cannot be
considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags or box
wraps, to be properly classified as copyrightable class O work. In addition, CA
stressed that the protective mantle of the Trademark Law extends only to the goods
used by the first user as specified in its certificate of registration. The registration of the
trademark Poster Ads covers only stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes and
calling cards and newsletter.

ISSUES: (1) If the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit are
granted copyright protection is the light box depicted in such drawings ipso facto also
protected by such copyright? (2) Should the light box be registered separately? (3) Can
the owner of the registered trademark legally prevent others from using such mark if it is
mere abbreviation of a term descriptive of his goods, services or business?
Held:
1. No. Copyright is purely statutory. As such, 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 the terms and conditions specified in the statute.
Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or
description. Petitioner secured copyright under classification class O work.
Thus, copyright protection extended only to the technical drawings and not to the
light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of prints, pictorial
illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps.
What the law does not include, it excludes, and for the good reason: the
light box was not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the
copyright law. And no less clearly, neither could the lack of statutory authority to
make the light box copyrightable be remedied by the simplistic act of entitling the
copyright certificate issued by the National Library as Advertising Display Units.

It must be noted that copyright is confined to literary and artistic works

which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain
protected from the moment of their creation.
2. Yes. Petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It therefore acquired no
patent rights which could have protected its invention, if in fact it really was. And
because it had no patent, petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from
manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. To be able to effectively
and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention, a
patent is a primordial requirement. No patent, no protection. The ultimate goal of
a patent system is to bring new designs and technologies into the public through
disclosure. Ideas, once, disclosed to the public without protection of a valid
patent, are subject to appropriation without significant restraint.
The Patent Law has a three-fold purpose: first, patent law seeks to foster
and reward invention; second, it promotes disclosures of inventions to stimulate
further innovation and to permit the public to practice the invention once the
patent expires; third, the stringent requirements for patent protection seek to
ensure that ideas in the public domain remain there for the free use of the public.
It is only after an exhaustive examination by the patent office that patent is
issued. Therefore, not having gone through the arduous examination for patents,
petitioner cannot exclude other s from the manufacture, sale or commercial use
of the light boxes on the sole basis of its copyright certificate over the technical
drawings.
3. Court agrees with CA that the certificate of registration issued by the Director of
Patents can confer the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods
specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations specified in
the certificate. One who has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does
not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others for products
which are of a different description.
Assuming arguendo that Poster Ads could validly qualify as a trademark,
the failure of petitioner to secure a trademark registration for specific use on the
light boxes meant that there could not have been any trademark infringement
since registration was an essential element thereof.
There is no evidence that petitioners use of poster Ads was distinctive or
well-known. As noted by CA, petitioners expert witness himself had testified that
Poster Ads was not too generic a name. SO it was difficult to identify it with any
company. This fact also prevented the application of the doctrine of secondary

meaning. Poster Ads was generic and incapable of being used as a trademark
because it was used in the field of poster advertising the very business engaged
in by petitioner. Secondary meaning means that a word or phrase originally
incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market
might nevertheless have been used for so long and so exclusively by one
producer with reference to his article that , in the trade and to that branch of the
purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his
property.
PETITION WAS DENIED.

Ching v. Salinas, Sr. (G.R. No. 161295)

Facts:
P is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing Co., the maker and
manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile
made up of plastic, which was issued by the National Library Certificates of Copyright
Registration and Deposit.
P requested the NBI for police/investigative assistance for the apprehension and
prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producers and/or distributors of the works. After
due investigation, the NBI filed applications for SWs against R alleging that the latter
therein reproduced and distributed the said models penalized under R.A. No. 8293.
RTC granted the application and issued SWs for the seizure of the aforecited articles.
R filed a motion to quash the search warrants averring that the works covered by the
certificates issued by the National Library are not artistic in nature; they are considered
automotive spare parts and pertain to technology. They aver that the models are not
original, and as such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright.
RTC quashed the SW. Ps MR having been denied; he filed a petition for certiorari in the
CA. The petition was dismissed.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Ps certificate of copyright registration over said utility models are
valid; and

(2) Whether or not Ps utility models can be considered literary and artistic works
subject to copyright protection.

Ruling:
(1) The petition has no merit. To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the
certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A
copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of
copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and
the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a
certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant
should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that
underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging
them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.
A certificate of registration creates no rebuttable presumption of copyright validity where
other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question. In such a case, validity will not
be presumed. No copyright granted by law can be said to arise in favor of the petitioner
despite the issuance of the certificates of copyright registration and the deposit of the
Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion.
(2) We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 171.10 of R.A. No.
8293), that the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is a creation with
utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale, is
protected by copyright law. However, the law refers to a work of applied art which is an
artistic creation. It bears stressing that there is no copyright protection for works of
applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be
identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article. Functional components of
useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have generally been denied
copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful article.
In this case, the petitioners models are not works of applied art, nor artistic works. They
are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. Being plain
automotive spare parts that must conform to the original structural design of the
components they seek to replace, the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing
Cushion are not ornamental. They lack the decorative quality or value that must
characterize authentic works of applied art. They are not even artistic creations with
incidental utilitarian functions or works incorporated in a useful article. In actuality, the
personal properties described in the search warrants are mechanical works, the
principal function of which is utility sans any aesthetic embellishment.

In this case, the bushing and cushion are not works of art. They are, as the petitioner
himself admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a patent.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED.

Habana v. Robles (July 19, 1999 GR 131522)

FACTS: Petitioners are authors and copyright holders of books on the English language
(College English for TodayBook 1 and 2, and Workbook for College Freshman
English). They were revising their books and were scouting for other books of similar
subject matter when they chanced upon the books of Respondents published by
Goodwill Trading Co. Inc. (Developing English ProficiencyBooks 1 and 2). Upon
further perusal they discovered that the content of said books was very much similar to
theirs, and in fact several pages were even identical. Some illustrative examples were
exactly the same. However, while herein Petitioners researched on said examples by
foreign authors and made due acknowledgement, Respondents made use of the same
and never cited the authors. They did not even cite the Petitioners as the first to use
said example.
Petitioners tried to settle the matter extra-judicially by asking Respondents to cease and
desist from selling and distributing the books and by claiming for damages due to lost
profit. But said demands were ignored. So they filed action for Infringement and or/
Unfair Competition with damages before the RTC against Respondents and Goodwill.
The trial court ruled in favor of Respondents and dismissed the claim against Goodwill.
It subscribed to the arguments of Respondents that there was no plagiarism resulting to
Infringement because the examples were by foreign authors and for educational
purposes subject to fair use. It also agreed with Respondents that the similarities were
brought about by the fact that the books dealt with the same subject matter and adhered
to the same presentation format prescribed by the Philippine Colleges of Arts and
Sciences (APCAS). Goodwill was also said to be absolved because it was not privy to
the plagiarism and in their contract with Respondents, there was a guaranty that the
work was original and the publisher will not be liable in case Infringement claims. The
trial court also subscribed to the notion of Respondents that Petitioner was motivated by
bad faith in filing the case due to professional jealousy. This is because the assailed
books replaced Petitioners as official textbook of the FEU Graduate Studies
Department.

Petitioners appealed before the CA. But just the same, the appellate court ruled in favor
of Respondents opining that the topics said to be plagiarized were also topics or matters
also found in earlier books on college English, even including foreign books. But it ruled
that Petitioners were not in bad faith in filing the claim. Hence Petitioners filed for
Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the SC.

The issues in this case are two-fold:

1. Is there copyright infringement given that the books dealt with the same subject
and subscribed to the same presentation format, and only some parts were
similar and identical?
2. Is the defense of fair use tenable?

The Court rules:

1. Yes, there is plagiarism resulting to copyright infringement in this case. Under RA
8293 copyright holders have copy or economic rights including the exclusive right
to carry out, authorize or prevent reproduction of the whole work or even just a
substantial portion of it. One limitation to this right is that quotations of a
copyrighted work may be included in other publication when compatible with the
Fair Use Doctrine (i. e. by way of illustration for teaching purposes) as long as
the author is cited as source. In this case, even if the books dealt with the same
subject and subscribed to the same format, and even if only some parts were
similar and identical, there is still infringement. It need not be a reproduction of
the entire work, or even a large portion of it. If so much is taken that the value of
the original work is substantially diminished or the labors of the original author
are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated, there is infringement. In
this case, not only the discussions were lifted, but also the examples. And this
was done without due acknowledgement to Petitioners.
2. Fair Use cannot be a defense in this case. True, both Petitioners and
Respondents used works by foreign authors as illustrative examples for
educational purposes. But Petitioners cited or acknowledged the authors,
Respondents did not. Petitioners labored to do research to find the best
examples and gave citations for it. Respondents copied the same and did not at

least acknowledge Petitioners or even the foreign authors of said examples.

There must be citations.

FILIPINO
SOCIETY
OF
COMPOSERS,
AUTHORS
&
(FILSCAP) vs BENJAMIN TAN [G.R. No. L-32339. March 29, 1988]

PUBLISHERS, INC.

FILSCAP:
- Is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled:
"Dahil SaIyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The
Nearness Of You."
- Filed a complaint with the lower court for infringement of copyright against defendantappellee for allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs
copyrighted in the name of the former.
Benjamin Tan:
- Countered that the complaint states no cause of action. While not denying the playing
of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment, appellee maintains that the mere
singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do not
constitute an infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law.

ISSUE: whether or not the playing and signing of musical compositions which have
been copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the
establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for profit within
the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines; and assuming
that there were indeed public performances for profit, whether or not appellee can be
held liable therefor.

Held:
NO. It has been held that "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which
was paid for by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted "performance for
profit" within a Copyright Law." Thus, it has been explained that while it is possible in
such establishments for the patrons to purchase their food and drinks and at the same
time dance to the music of the orchestra, the music is furnished and used by the
orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public to patronize the establishment and pay
for the entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks. The defendant conducts his

place of business for profit, and it is public; and the music is performed for profit.
Nevertheless, appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law.
Appellee's allegation that the composers of the contested musical compositions waived
their right in favor of the general public when they allowed their intellectual creations to
become property of the public domain before applying for the corresponding copyrights
for the same is correct.
The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order
No. 3(as amended, dated September 18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the
Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated
pursuant to Republic Act165, provides among other things that an intellectual creation
should be copyrighted thirty (30)days after its publication, if made in Manila, or within
the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public property."
Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for
thirty (30) days 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. Under the
circumstances, it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become
public property, and are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law.