Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
<!Court
;.ffianila
THIRD DIVISION
Promulgated:
LIM ENG CO, March 14, 2016
x----------------
DECISION
REYES, J.:
The Antecedents
6
Id. at 73.
7
Id. at 66.
8
Id. at 66, 97.
9
Id. at 66, 97-98.
10
Id. at 98.
11
Id. at 47.
12
Id. at 98.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 195835
13
Id.
14
Id. at 105.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Id. at 66-68.
18
Id. at 69-72.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 195835
Adamant, the respondent filed a petition for review before the DOJ
but it was also denied due course in the Resolution22 dated November 16,
2005.
19
Id. at 76-78.
20
Rendered by Senior State Prosecutor Rosalina P. Aquino; id. at 97-113.
21
Id. at 113.
22
Id. at 139-140
23
Id. at 141-144.
24
Id. at 143.
25
Id. at 142.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 195835
SO ORDERED.27
The CA then proceeded to make its own finding of probable cause and
held that:
xxxx
[T]he fact that LEC enjoys ownership of copyright not only on the
illustrations of the hatch doors but on the hatch doors itself and that [the
petitioners] manufactured the same is sufficient to warrant a finding of
probable cause for copyright infringement. x x x.31
SO ORDERED.32
35
Id. at 17-18.
36
Id. at 20-21.
37
Spouses Aduan v. Chong, 610 Phil. 178, 183-184 (2009), citing First Womens Credit Corporation
v. Hon. Perez, 524 Phil. 305, 308-309 (2006).
38
Spouses Aduan v. Chong, id. at 184, citing United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, 560 Phil.
581, 591 (2007).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 195835
The Court disagrees. It has been held that the issuance by the DOJ of
several resolutions with varying findings of fact and conclusions of law on
the existence of probable cause, by itself, is not indicative of grave abuse of
discretion.42
39
Spouses Aduan v. Chong; id. at 185.
40
Spouses Balangauan v. The Hon. CA, Special 19th Division, et al., 584 Phil. 183, 197-198 (2008).
41
Rollo, p. 57.
42
Tan, Jr. v. Matsuura, et al., 701 Phil. 236, 250 (2013).
43
Id. at 260.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 195835
44
Rollo, p. 105.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 195835
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded on such a state of facts
in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and
prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is
so.46
The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import
absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is
believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged.47
45
First Womens Credit Corporation v. Hon. Perez, supra note 37, at 310.
46
Hasegawa v. Giron, G.R. No. 184536, August 14, 2013, 703 SCRA 549, 559.
47
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, supra note 38, at 596-597.
48
Ang-Abaya, et al. v. Ang, 593 Phil. 530, 542 (2008).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 195835
177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the
work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
49
Habana v. Robles, 369 Phil. 764, 787 (1999).
50
Ching v. Salinas, Sr., 500 Phil. 628, 639 (2005).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 195835
doors. What were discovered instead were finished and unfinished hatch
doors.
51
Rollo, p. 107.
52
Id. at 109.
53
456 Phil. 474 (2003).
54
Id. at 489.
55
Habana v. Robles, supra note 49, at 790.
56
Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 195835
more, does not suffice to establish probable cause for infringement against
the petitioners. [A]lthough the determination of probable cause requires
less than evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more
than mere suspicion.57
57
Tan, Jr. v. Matsuura, et al., supra note 42, at 256.
58
Ching v. Salinas, Sr., supra note 50.
59
Id. at 640.
60
Id. at 640-641.
61
CA rollo, p. 84.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 195835
From the foregoing description, it is clear that the hatch doors were
not artistic works within the meaning of copyright laws. A copyrightable
work refers to literary and artistic works defined as original intellectual
creations in the literary and artistic domain.63
62
Id. at 63.
63
Ching v. Salinas, Sr., supra note 50, at 650, citing Pearl and Dean (Philippines), Incorporated v.
Shoemart, Incorporated, supra note 53, at 490.
64
See WEBSTERS THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (Unabridged), pp. 1037, 2613, (1986
edition).
65
Chosun Intl, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd., 413 F.3d 324 (2d. Cir. 2005).
66
Id.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 195835
67
Id., citing 17 U.S.C. 101.
68
Id., citing Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980).
69
Id., citing Mazer v. Stein, supra note 56.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 195835
The same is true with respect to the design on the door's panel.
As LEC has stated, the panels were "designed to blend in with the
floor of the units in which they [were] installed. " 72 Photos of the
panels indeed show that their color and pattern design were similar to the
wooden floor parquet of the condominium units. 73 This means that the
design on the hatch door panel was not a product of LEC' s independent
artistic judgment and discretion but rather a mere reproduction of an already
existing design.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
70
Ching v. Salinas, Sr., supra note 50.
71
Jones Bros. Co. v. Underkoffler, 16 F. Supp. 729 (M.D. Pa. 1936).
72
Rollo, p. 24.
73
Id. at 209-210.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 195835
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, JR.
Ass6ciate Justice
,.....
FRANCISH.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION