IPL DIGESTS- NOV. 10, 2017 RULING: Yes. The news footage is copyrightable.

GMA’s mere act of rebroadcasting ABS-CBN’s news footage without

(1) ABS-CBN v. GOZON authority from the latter gives rise to the probability that a crime was
committed under the Intellectual Property Code. That they (respondents Dela
FACTS: On August 13, 2004, ABS-CBN filed the Complaint for copyright Peña-Reyes and Manalastas) could have prevented the act of infringement
infringement under Sections 177 and 211 of the IPO because respondent had they been diligent in their functions as Head of News Operations and
GMA aired footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz Program Manager. They knew that there would be consequences in carrying
at NAIA from Iraq without petitioner’s consent. ABS-CBN's footage in their broadcast. That is why GMA-7 allegedly cut the
feed from Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBN's logo and reporter.
ABS-CBN allowed Reuters Television Service (Reuters) to air the footages it
had taken earlier under a special embargo agreement. ABS-CBN alleged The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum
that under the special embargo agreement, any of the footages it took would prohibitum. "An act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal
be for the "use of Renter's international subscribers only, and shall be intent is completely immaterial." Crimes mala in se presuppose that the
considered and treated by Reuters under 'embargo' against use by other person who did the felonious act had criminal intent to do so, while crimes
subscribers in the Philippines. . . . No other Philippine subscriber of Reuters mala prohibita do not require knowledge or criminal intent. The court also
would be allowed to use ABS-CBN footage without the latter's consent. stated that PH laws on copyright infringement does not require criminal intent
and does not support good faith as a defense. Thus, the act of infringement
GMA-7 subscribes to both Reuters and Cable News Network (CNN). It and not the intent is the one that causes the damage.
received a live video feed of the coverage of Angelo dela Cruz's arrival from
Reuters. GMA-7 immediately carried the live newsfeed in its program "Flash ABS-CBN’s video footage is copyrightable. IPO is clear about the rights
Report," together with its live broadcast. Allegedly, GMA-7 did not receive afforded to authors of various kinds of work. Under the Code, "works are
any notice or was not aware that Reuters was airing footages of ABS-CBN. 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
Assistant City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza issued the Resolution finding audio-visual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a
probable cause to indict Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas (GMA-7). process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual
Respondents filed the Petition for Review before the DOJ, wherein recordings.
(Gonzalez Resolution) ruled in favor of respondents and held that good faith
may be raised as a defense in the case. 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
DOJ Acting Secretary Agra issued the Resolution (Agra Resolution) that press information" are considered unprotected subject matter. However, the
reversed the Gonzalez Resolution and found probable cause to charge Dela Code does not state that expression of the news of the day, particularly when
Peña-Reyes and Manalastas for violation of the Intellectual Property Code. it underwent a creative process, is not entitled to protection.

Eventually, the Court of Appeals granted the temporary restraining order An idea or event must be distinguished from the expression of that idea or
preventing the DOJ from enforcing the Agra Resolution, stating that petitioner event. An idea has been likened to a ghost in that it "must be spoken to a
has copyright of its news coverage, but respondent’s act of airing 5 seconds little before it will explain itself." It is a concept that has eluded exact legal
of the homecoming footage without notice of the "No Access Philippines" definition. Thus, the court stated that “only the expression of an idea is
restriction of the live”Reuter’s video feed, was undeniably attended in good protected by copyright, not the idea itself.”
faith and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the IPO.
In this case, however, respondents admitted that the material under review
ISSUE: Whether there is probable cause to charge respondents with — which is the subject of the controversy — is an exact copy of the original.
infringement under Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Respondents did not subject ABS-CBN's footage to any editing of their own.
Intellectual Property Code. The news footage did not undergo any transformation where there is a need
to track elements of the original.

1
(2) ABS-CBN v. Phil. MultiMedia
PMSI was likewise granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No.
FACTS: Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) is a signal provider 8630, Section 4 of which similarly states that it “shall provide adequate public
which has cable and satellite services. It is providing its satellite services service time to enable the government, through the said broadcasting
through Dream Broadcasting System. PMSI has its “Free TV” and “Premium stations, to reach the population on important public issues; provide at all
Channels”. The Free TV includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7, and other local times sound and balanced programming; promote public participation such
networks. The premium channels include AXN, Jack TV, etc which were paid as in community programming; assist in the functions of public information
by subscribers before such channels can be transmitted as feeds to a and education.
subscriber’s TV set which has been installed with a Dream satellite.
The “Must-Carry Rule” favors both broadcasting organizations and the public.
ABS-CBN broadcasts television programs by wireless means to Metro It prevents cable television companies from excluding broadcasting
Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through organization especially in those places not reached by signal. Also, the rule
Channel 2 and Channel 23. The programs aired over Channels 2 and 23 are prevents cable television companies from depriving viewers in far-flung areas
either produced by ABS-CBN or purchased from or licensed by other the enjoyment of programs available to city viewers.
producers. ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern
their programming in accordance with perceived demands of the region. PMSI does not produce, select, or determine the programs to be shown in
Thus, television programs shown in Metro Manila and nearby provinces are Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does not pass itself off as the origin or author
not necessarily shown in other provinces. of such programs. Insofar as Channels 2 and 23 are concerned, PMSI
merely retransmits the same in accordance with Memorandum Circular 04-
In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSI for allegedly engaging in rebroadcasting 08-88. With regard to its premium channels, it buys the channels from
and thereby infringing on ABS-CBN’s copyrights; that the transmission of content providers and transmits on an as-is basis to its viewers. Clearly,
Channels 2 and 23 to the provinces where these two channels are not PMSI does not perform the functions of a broadcasting organization; thus, it
usually shown altered ABS-CBN’s programming for the said provinces. PMSI cannot be said that it is engaged in rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
argued that it is not infringing upon ABS-CBN’s copyrights because it is
operating under the “Must-Carry Rule” outlined in NTC (National (3) FILSCAP v. TAN
Telecommunications Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88.
FACTS: Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors, composers
ISSUE: Whether or not PMSI infringed upon the copyrights of ABS-CBN. and publishers duly organized under the Corporation Law of the Philippines
and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said
RULING: No.
association is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are
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 the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami
more sources of news, information, education, sports event and Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You."
entertainment programs other than those provided for by mass media and
afforded television programs to attain a well informed, well-versed and - On the other hand, defendant-appellee is the operator of a restaurant
culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The known as "Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant" where a combo with
very intent and spirit of the NTC Circular will prevent a situation whereby professional singers, hired to play and sing musical compositions to entertain
station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make and amuse customers therein, were playing and singing the above-
time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own mentioned compositions without any license or permission from the
views on public issues, people, and to permit on the air only those with whom
appellant.
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
- Accordingly, appellant demanded from the appellee payment of the
provide at all times sound and balanced programming and assist in the
functions of public information and education. necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions
but the demand was ignored. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint with
2
the lower court for infringement of copyright for allowing the playing in allowed their intellectual creations to become property of the public domain
defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs copyrighted in the name of the before applying for the corresponding copyrights for the same is correct.
former.
- The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order
- Defendant-appellee, however, countered that the complaint states no cause No. 3(as amended, dated September 18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the
of action. While not denying the playing of said copyrighted compositions in Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated
his establishment, appellee maintains that the mere singing and playing of pursuant to Republic Act165, provides among other things that an intellectual creation
songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do not constitute an should be copyrighted thirty (30)days after its publication, if made in Manila, or
infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law. 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
- The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s copyrighted for thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law deems the object
complaint. Hence, this appeal. to have been donated to the public domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted.

ISSUE: Whether or not the playing and signing of musical compositions - A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which
which have been copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act was registered on April 20, 1956 became popular in radios, juke boxes, etc.
3134) inside the establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public long before registration, while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on
performance for profit within the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright January 14, 1955 had become popular twenty five (25) years prior to 1968,
Law of the Philippines; and assuming that there were indeed public (the year of the hearing) or from 1943and the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin"
performances for profit, whether or not appellee can be held liable therefor. and "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10, 1966,
appear to have been known and sang by the witnesses as early as 1965 or
HELD: NO. "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was
three years before the hearing in 1968.
paid for by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted
"performance for profit" within a Copyright Law." Thus, it has been explained - The testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this subject
that while it is possible in such establishments for the patrons to purchase were unrebutted by the appellant. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the
their food and drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the musical compositions in question had long become public property, and are therefore
orchestra, the music is furnished and used by the orchestra for the purpose beyond the protection of the Copyright Law.
of inducing the public to patronize the establishment and pay for the
entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks. (4) SISON OLANO v. LIM ENG CO.

- The defendant conducts his place of business for profit, and it is public; and FACTS: The petitioners are the officers and/or directors of Metrotech Steel
the music is performed for profit. In the case at bar, it is admitted that the Industries, Inc. (Metrotech). Lim Eng Co (respondent), on the other hand, is
patrons of the restaurant in question pay only for the food and drinks and the Chairman of LEC Steel Manufacturing Corporation (LEC), a company
apparently not for listening to the music. As found by the trial court, the music which specializes in architectural metal manufacturing.
provided is for the purpose of entertaining and amusing the customers in
order to make the establishment more attractive and desirable. Nevertheless, - LEC was invited by the architects of the Manansala Project (Project), to
appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law. submit design/drawings and specifications for interior and exterior hatch
doors. LEC complied by submitting shop plans/drawings, including the
- Appellee's allegation that the composers of the contested musical diskette therefor, embodying the designs and specifications required for the
compositions waived their right in favor of the general public when they metal hatch doors. After a series of consultations and revisions, the final
shop plans/drawings were submitted and thereafter copied and transferred to
3
the title block of Ski-First Balfour Joint Venture (SKI-FB), the Project's RTC: quashed the search warrant on the ground that copyright infringement
contractor, and then stamped approved for construction was not established.

- LEC was thereafter subcontracted by SKI-FB, to manufacture and install - Petitioners admitted manufacturing hatch doors for the Project. They
interior and exterior hatch doors for the 7th to 22nd floors of the Project based denied, however, that they committed copyright infringement and averred
on the final shop plans/drawings. Thereafter, LEC learned that Metrotech that the hatch doors they manufactured were functional inventions that are
was also subcontracted to install interior and exterior hatch doors for the proper subjects of patents and that the records of the Intellectual Property
Project's 23rd to 41st floors. Office reveal that there is no patent, industrial design or utility model
registration on LEC's hatch doors.
- LEC demanded Metrotech to cease from infringing its intellectual property
rights. Metrotech, however, insisted that no copyright infringement was - Metrotech further argued that the manufacturing of hatch doors per se is not
committed because the hatch doors it manufactured were patterned in copyright infringement because copyright protection does not extend to the
accordance with the drawings provided by SKI-FB. objects depicted in the illustrations and plans. Moreover, there is no artistic or
ornamental expression embodied in the subject hatch doors that would
- On July 2, 2004, LEC deposited with the National Library the final shop subject them to copyright protection.
plans/drawings of the designs and specifications for the interior and exterior
hatch doors of the Project and was issued a Certificate of Copyright DOJ: The investigating prosecutor dismissed the respondent's complaint
Registration and Deposit showing that it is the registered owner of based on inadequate evidence showing that: (1) the petitioners committed
plans/drawings for interior and exterior hatch doors under Registration Nos. the prohibited acts under Section 177 of R.A. No. 8293; and (2) the interior
1-2004-13 and 1-2004-14, respectively. This copyright pertains to class work and exterior hatch doors of the petitioners are among the classes of
"I" under The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which covers copyrightable work enumerated in Sections 172 and 173 of the same law.
"illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works
relative to geography, topography, architecture or science." - Upon the respondent's motion for reconsideration, however, the Resolution
of the DOJ reversed and set aside the Resolution dated August 18, 2005 and
- On December 9, 2004, LEC was issued another Certificate of Copyright directed the Chief State Prosecutor to file the appropriate information for
Registration and Deposit showing that it is the registered owner of copyright infringement against the petitioners. The DOJ reasoned that the
plans/drawings for interior and exterior hatch doors as "original ornamental pieces of evidence adduced show that the subject hatch doors are artistic or
designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as ornamental with distinctive hinges, door and jamb, among others. The
an industrial design, and other works of applied art." petitioners were not able to sufficiently rebut these allegations and merely
insisted on the non-artistic nature of the hatch doors.
- When Metrotech still refused to stop fabricating hatch doors based on
LEC's shop plans/drawings, the latter sought the assistance of the National - Aggrieved, the petitioners moved for reconsideration. This time, the DOJ
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which in turn applied for a search warrant made a complete turn around by granting the motion, and declaring that the
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 24. The evidence on record did not establish probable cause because the subject
application was granted thus resulting in the confiscation of finished and hatch doors were plainly metal doors with functional components devoid of
unfinished metal hatch doors as well as machines used in fabricating and any aesthetic or artistic features.
manufacturing hatch doors from the premises of Metrotech.
CA: The fact that LEC enjoys ownership of copyright not only on the
- The respondent filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the DOJ against the illustrations of the hatch doors but on the hatch doors itself and that the
petitioners for copyright infringement.
4
petitioners manufactured the same is sufficient to warrant a finding of - Copyright infringement is thus committed by any person who shall use
probable cause for copyright infringement. original literary or artistic works, or derivative works, without the copyright
owner's consent in such a manner as to violate the foregoing copy and
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, Metrotech, is guilty of copyright economic rights. For a claim of copyright infringement to prevail, the
infringement. evidence on record must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a validly copyrighted
material by the complainant; and (2) infringement of the copyright by the
- The manufacturing of hatch doors per se does not fall within the purview of
respondent.
copyright infringement because copyright protection does not extend to the
objects depicted in the illustrations and plans. - While both elements subsist in the records, they did not simultaneously
concur so as to substantiate infringement of LEC's two sets of copyright
HELD: NO. A copyright refers to "the right granted by a statute to the
registrations. Futhermore, the raid conducted by the NBI on Metrotech's
proprietor of an intellectual production to its exclusive use and enjoyment to
premises yielded no copies or reproduction of LEC's copyrighted
the extent specified in the statute." Under Section 177 of R.A. No. 8293, the
sketches/drawings of hatch doors. What were discovered instead were
Copyright or Economic Rights consist of the exclusive right to carry out,
finished and unfinished hatch doors.
authorize or prevent the following acts:
- Certificate of Registration Nos. 1-2004-13 and 1-2004-14 pertain to class
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work; work "I" under Section 172 of R.A. No. 8293 which covers "illustrations,
maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to
geography, topography, architecture or science."51 As such, LEC's copyright
177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement protection there under covered only the hatch door sketches/drawings and
or other transformation of the work;
not the actual hatch door they depict.

177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the - Since the hatch doors cannot be considered as either illustrations, maps,
work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership; 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
177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or sketches/drawings only, and not the actual hatch doors themselves. To
cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a constitute infringement, the usurper must have copied or appropriated the
computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a
original work of an author or copyright proprietor, absent copying, there can
musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the
original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; be no infringement of copyright.

- From the foregoing, it is clear that the hatch doors were not artistic works
177.5 Public display of the original or a copy of the work; 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. A hatch door, by its nature is an object of utility. It is
177.6 Public performance of the work; and intrinsically a useful article, which, as a whole, is not eligible for copyright.

- A "useful article" defined as an article "having an intrinsic utilitarian function

177.7 Other communication to the public of the work.
that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey
information" is excluded from copyright eligibility.
5
The only instance when a useful article may be the subject of copyright On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her
protection is when it incorporates a design element that is physically or own intellectual creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid
conceptually separable from the underlying product. This means that the copyrighted book and that the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise
of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as guides."
utilitarian article can function without the design element. In such an
instance, the design element is eligible for copyright protection. TRIAL COURT—ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any
liability.
- In the present case, LEC's hatch doors bore no design elements that are
physically and conceptually separable, independent and distinguishable from CA—rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill
Trading Co., Inc.
the hatch door itself. The allegedly distinct set of hinges and distinct jamb,
were related and necessary hence, not physically or conceptually separable Hence, this petition.
from the hatch door's utilitarian function as an apparatus for emergency
egress. Without them, the hatch door will not function. ISSUE: Whether or not there is infringement of Habana’s copyright?

- More importantly, they are already existing articles of manufacture sourced HELD: YES. A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP
that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. In several other pages the
from different suppliers. Based on the records, it is unrebutted that: (a) the
treatment and manner of presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a
hinges are similar to those used in truck doors; (b) the gaskets were rehash of that contained in CET. The similarities in examples and material
procured from a company named Pemko and are not original creations of contents are so obviously present in this case. How can similar/identical
LEC; and (c) the locking device are ordinary drawer locks commonly used in examples not be considered as a mark of copying? Robles’ act of lifting from
furniture and office desks. the book of Habana et al substantial portions of discussions and examples,
and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of
- Being articles of manufacture already in existence, they cannot be deemed Habana et al’s copyrights.
as original creations. As earlier stated, valid copyright ownership denotes The Supreme Court also elucidated that in determining the question of
originality of the copyrighted material. Originality means that the material was infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an
not copied, evidences at least minimal creativity and was independently important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that
created by the author.70 It connotes production as a result of independent the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so
labor.71 LEC did not produce the door jambs and hinges; it bought or 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
acquired them from suppliers and thereafter affixed them to the hatch doors.
appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.
No independent original creation can be deduced from such acts.

(5) HABANA vs ROBLES (6) JOAQUIN vs DRILON

FACTS: Pacita Habana and two others were the authors of College English FACTS: BJ Productions, Inc. is the grantee of a copyright certificate over
for Today Series 1 and (CET). While they were researching for books to “Rhoda and Me,” a dating game show which aired from 1970 to 1977. On
assist them in updating their own book, they chanced upon the book of June 1973, “It’s a Date” aired on RPN Channel 9. When this came to the
Felicidad Robles entitled Developing English Proficiency Books 1 and 2 attention of herein petitioner Joaquin, he sent the producers of the show a
(DEP). They discovered further that the book of Robles was strikingly similar letter informing them of the issued copyright over the material, and asked
to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and illustrative them to cease and desist from airing the said show. Subsequently, an
examples of CET. They then sued Robles and her publisher (Goodwill information for violation of copyright was filed before the court. However, IXL
Trading Co.) for infringement and/or unfair competition with damages. Productions (who produced the latter show), moved for a review of the
information before the DOJ, who, through secretary Franklin Drilon, moved

6
for the information to be discarded, contending that a particular format of a uses, thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the
game show is non-copyrightable. petitioner's business sales and income; and, that the respondents should be
enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the
petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not IXL violated copyright law?
Respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that Summerville is
HELD: No. The format of a game show is not copyrightable. Philippine and the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun
U.S. law concur in the principle that there is no copyright except that which is Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan; that the said
both created and secured by an act of Congress. Unfortunately for BJ Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its
Productions, the format of a particular television program does not fall among trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office
those protected by section 2 of P.D. No. 49. What was registered therefore, and other appropriate governmental agencies; that KEC Cosmetics
were the episodes of “Rhoda and Me,” but not an exclusive right to air any Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights through
show with the same theme. misrepresentation and falsification; and, that the authority of Quintin Cheng,
assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and market Chin
Chun Su products in the Philippines had already been terminated by the said
This provision is substantially the same as 172 of the INTELLECTUAL
Taiwanese Manufacturing Company.
PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). The format or
mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in  RTC – granted the application of Kho.
2 of P.D. No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be  CA – ruled in favour of Summerville and Ang Tiam Chay
extended to cover them.
ISSUE: WON the copyright and patent over the name and container of a
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new beauty cream product would entitle the registrant to the use and ownership
or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing over the same to the exclusion of others?
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 RULING: The Court ruled in favour of Summerville and Ang Tiam Chay.
the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the
statute. Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that
cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign
capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of
(7) KHO v. CA an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In
relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or
FACTS: On 1991, Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and
distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined
damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the
against the Summerville General Merchandising and Company (Summerville, literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their
for brevity) and Ang Tiam Chay. creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical
solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an
The petitioner's complaint alleges that petitioner, doing business under the
inventive step and is industrially applicable.15
name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, is the registered owner of the
copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case, as shown Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the
by Certificates of Copyright Registration No. 0-1358 and No. 0-3678; that she subject trade name and its container. The name and container of a beauty
also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for
cream product are proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the same
medicated cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the
registered owner thereof in the Supplemental Register of the Philippine same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently
Patent Office on February 7, 1980 under Registration Certificate No. 4529; prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. The petitioner's
that respondent Summerville advertised and sold petitioner's cream products copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not
under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner
7
guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that And with respect to the examples used by the defendant in his dictionary,
they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Consequently, which, according to the judgment, are not copied from the plaintiff's — the
a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the judgment referring to the preposition a (to), in Tagalog sa — it must be noted
petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and that the defendant, in giving in his dictionary an example of said preposition,
container to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has uses the expression "voy a Tayabas" (I am going to Tayabas) instead of
registered a trademark thereto or used the same before anyone did. "voy aBulacan" (I am going to Bulacan), as the plaintiff does in his dictionary,
or what is the same thing, that one speaks of Bulacan while the other speaks
(8) LAKTAW v. PAGLINAWAN of Tayabas. This does not show that there was no reproduction or copying by
the defendant of the plaintiffs work, but just the opposite, for he who intends
FACTS: Laktaw was, according to the laws regulating literary properties, the to imitate the work of another, tries to make it appear in some manner that
registered owner and author of a literary work entitled Diccionario Hispano- there is some difference between the original and the imitation; and in the
Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary) published in the City of Manila in 1889 example referred to, with respect to the preposition a (to), that dissimilarity as
by the printing establishment La Opinion while Paglinawan, without the to the province designated seems to effect the same purpose.
consent of the plaintiff, reproduced said literary work, improperly copied the
greater part thereof in the work published by him and entitled Diccionariong EVIDENCE na ginaya:
Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary) which is a violation of article 7
of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, caused irreparable 1. of the 23,560 Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, after
injuries to Laktaw, who was surprised when, on publishing his new work deducting 17 words corresponding to the letters K and X (for the
entitled Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (Tagalog-Spanish Dictionary) he plaintiff has no words corresponding to them), only 3,108 words are
learned of the fact, and damages occasioned to the plaintiff by the the defendant's own, or, what is the same thing, the defendant has
publication of defendant's work amounted to $10,000. added only this number of words to those that are in the plaintiff's
dictionary, he having reproduced or copied the remaining 20,452
Laktaw prayed the court to order the defendant to withdraw from sale all words.
stock of the work herein identified as Exhibit B and to pay the plaintiff the 2. Paglinawan also literally reproduced and copied for the Spanish
sum of $10,000, with costs. words in his dictionary, the equivalents, definitions and different
meanings in Tagalog, given in plaintiff's dictionary, having
Paglinawan his answer denied generally each and every allegation of the reproduced, as to some words, everything that appears in the
complaint and prayed the court to absolve him from the complaint. plaintiff's dictionary for similar Spanish words, although as to some
he made some additions of his own. Said copies and reproductions
 RTC – absolved Paglinawan are numerous as may be seen, by comparing both dictionaries and
using as a guide or index the defendant's memorandum and notes,
ISSUE: WON Laktaw has no right of action and that the remedy sought by
first series, Exhibit C, in which, as to each word, the similarities and
him could not be granted?
differences between them are set forth in detail.
RULING: Laktaw cannot be denied the legal protection which he seeks, 3. printer's errors in the plaintiff's dictionary as to the expression of
and which is based on the fact that the dictionary published by him in some words in Spanish as well as their equivalents in Tagalog are
1889 is his property — said property right being recognized and having also reproduced, a fact which shows that the defendant, in preparing
been granted by article 7, in connection with article 2, of said law — and his dictionary, literally copied those Spanish words and their
on the further fact that said work was reproduced by the defendant meanings and equivalents in Tagalog from the plaintiff's dictionary.
without his permission.
(9) MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC. vs. DADODETTE
In said judgment some words of the defendant's dictionary are transcribed, ENTERPRISES
the equivalents and meanings of which in Tagalog are exactly the same as
those that are given in the plaintiff's dictionary, with the exception, as to some FACTS: NBI applied for a search warrant before the RTC based on the
of them, of only one acceptation, which is the defendant's own production. information that Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center were in

8
possession of goods, the copyright of which belonged to Manly Sportswear (10) UNILEVER PHILIPPINES (PRC), INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Mfg. RTC issued the search warrant.
FACTS: A P&G subsidiary in Italy used a key visual in the advertisement of
Dadodette Enterprises thereafter moved to quash and annul the search its laundry detergent and bleaching products. This key visual known as the
warrant They insisted that the sporting goods manufactured by and/or double-tug or tac-tac demonstration shows the fabric being held by both
registered in the name of MANLY are ordinary and common hence, not hands and stretched sideways. The tac-tac was conceptualized for P&G by
among the classes of work protected under Section 172 of RA 8293. the advertising agency Milano and Gray of Italy in 1982. The tac-tac was
used in the same year in an advertisement entitled All aperto to demonstrate
RTC granted the motion to quash and declared Search Warrant null and void the effect on fabrics of one of P&GP’s products, a liquid bleach called Ace.
based on its finding that the copyrighted products of MANLY do not appear to P&G has used the same distinctive tac-tac key visual to local consumers in
be original creations and were being manufactured and distributed by the Philippines.
different companies locally and abroad under various brands, and therefore
unqualified for protection under Section 172 of RA 8293. MANLY’s Unilever on 24 July 1993 substantially and materially imitating the aforesaid
certificates of registrations were issued only in 2002, whereas there were tac- tac key visual of P&GP and in blatant disregard of P&GP’s intellectual
certificates of registrations for the same sports articles which were issued property rights Unilever started airing a 60 second television commercial
earlier than MANLY’s, thus further negating the claim that its copyrighted TVC of its Breeze Powerwhite laundry product called Porky. The said TVC
products were original creations. included a stretching visual presentation and sound effects almost [identical]
or substantially similar to P&GP’s tac-tac key visual.
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
On July 15, 1994, P&GP aired in the Philippines, the same Kite television
ISSUE: W/N the trial court acted within bounds when it ruled, in an ancillary advertisement it used in Italy in 1986, merely dubbing the Italian language
proceeding, that the copyrighted products of petitioner are not original with Filipino for the same produce Ace bleaching liquid which P&GP now
creations. markets in the Philippines.

RULING: YES. This is because in the determination of the existence of Unilever filed a Complaint with the Advertising Board of the Philippines to
probable cause for the issuance or quashal of a warrant, it is inevitable that prevent P&GP from airing the Kite television advertisement.
the court may touch on issues properly threshed out in a regular proceeding.
In so doing, it does not usurp the power of, much less preclude, the court Unilever does not deny that the questioned TV advertisements are
from making a final judicial determination of the issues in a full- blown trial. substantially similar to P&GP’s double tug or tac-tac key visual. However, it
submits that P&GP is not entitled to the relief demanded, which is to enjoin
MANLY’s assertion that the trial court’s order quashing the warrant petitioner from airing said TV advertisements, for the reason that petitioner
preempted the finding of the intellectual property court has no legal basis. the has Certificates of Copyright Registration for which advertisements while
trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entertained the motion to quash P&GP has none with respect to its double-tug or tac-tac key visual. In other
considering that no criminal action has yet been instituted when it was filed. words, it is petitioner’s contention that P&GP is not entitled to any protection
The trial court also properly quashed the search warrant it earlier issued after because it has not registered with the National Library the very TV
finding upon reevaluation of the evidence that no probable cause exists to commercials which it claims have been infringed by petitioner.
justify its issuance in the first place.
RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and fixed a bond
The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the trial judges of P100,000. On the same date, P&GP filed the required bond issued by
in the exercise of their judicial function. As such, the power to quash the Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc.
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 re-evaluation CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
of the evidence that no probable cause exists.

9
ISSUE: W/N Unilever is entitled to protection even if “ double-tug or tac-tac partners were designated as Lead Networks.
“ key visual is not registered with the National Library.
Petitioner alleged that on 21 September 2015, respondent called for a
RULING: YES. Section 2 of PD 49 stipulates that the copyright for a work or meeting with various media outlets to discuss the "PiliPinas 2016 Debates,"
intellectual creation subsists from the moment of its creation. Accordingly, the for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, which the COMELEC was
creator acquires copyright for his work right upon its creation.⁄ Contrary to organizing.1 Respondent showed a presentation explaining the framework of
petitioner’s contention, the intellectual creator’s exercise and enjoyment of the debates, in which there will be three presidential debates and one vice
copyright for his work and the protection given by law to him is not contingent presidential debate. Respondent proposed that petitioner and Google, Inc. be
or dependent on any formality or registration. Therefore, taking the material in charge of online and social media engagement. Respondent announced
allegations of paragraphs 1.3 to 1.5 of P&GP’s verified Complaint in the during the meeting that KBP will coordinate with all media entities regarding
context of PD 49, it cannot be seriously doubted that at least, for purposes of the organization and conduct of the debates.
determining whether preliminary injunction should issue during the pendency
of the case, P&GP is entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for in its On 22 September 2015, petitioner sent a proposed draft for broadcast pool
Complaint. guidelines to COMELEC and the KBP. A broadcast pool has a common
audio and video feed of the debates, and the cost will be apportioned among
those needing access to the same. KBP informed petitioner that the proposal
(11) RAPPLER v. BAUTISTA
will be discussed in the next meeting.

EN BANC On 19 October 2015, another meeting was held at the COMELEC office to
discuss a draft MOA on the debates. In the draft, petitioner and Google's
G.R. No. 222702, April 05, 2016 participation were dropped in favor of the online outlets owned by the Lead
Networks. After the meeting, the representatives of the Lead Networks drew
RAPPLER, INC., Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, Respondent. lots to determine who will host each leg of the debates. GMA and its partner
Philippine Daily Inquirer sponsored the first presidential debate in Mindanao
RESOLUTION on 21 February 2016; TV5, Philippine Star, and Businessworld sponsored
the second phase of presidential debate in the Visayas on 20 March 2016;
ABS-CBN and Manila Bulletin will sponsor the presidential debate to be held
CARPIO, J.: in Luzon on 24 April 2016; and the lone vice-presidential debate will be
sponsored by CNN, Business Mirror, and petitioner on 10 April 2016.
Petitioner Rappler, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition Petitioner alleged that the draft MOA permitted online streaming, provided
against Andres D. Bautista (respondent), in his capacity as Chairman of the proper attribution is given the Lead Network.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition seeks to nullify Part VI
(C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of On 12 January 2016, petitioner was informed that the MOA signing was
Agreement (MOA) on the 2016 presidential and vice-presidential debates, for scheduled the following day. Upon petitioner's request, the draft MOA was
being executed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of emailed to petitioner on the evening of 12 January 2016. Petitioner
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and for violating the communicated with respondent its concerns regarding certain provisions of
fundamental rights of petitioner protected under the Constitution. The MOA, the MOA particularly regarding online streaming and the imposition of a
signed on 13 January 2016, was executed by the COMELEC through its maximum limit of two minutes of debate excerpts for news reporting.
Chairman, respondent Bautista, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Respondent assured petitioner that its concerns will be addressed
Pilipinas (KBP), and the various media networks, namely: ABS-CBN afterwards, but it has to sign the MOA because time was of the essence. On
Corporation, GMA Network, Inc., Nine Media Corporation, TV5 Network, Inc., 13 January 2016, petitioner, along with other media networks and entities,
Philstar Daily, Inc., Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., Manila Bulletin Publishing executed the MOA with the KBP and the COMELEC for the conduct of the
Corporation, Philippine Business Daily Mirror Publishing, Inc., and petitioner. three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. Petitioner
Under the MOA, the KBP was designated as Debate Coordinator while ABS- alleged that it made several communications with respondent and the
CBN, GMA, Nine Media, and TV5, together with their respective print media
10
COMELEC Commissioners regarding its concerns on some of the MOA
provisions, but petitioner received no response. Hence, this petition. Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed for its procedural
defects. In several cases, this Court has acted liberally and set aside
In this petition for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner prays for the Court to procedural lapses in cases involving transcendental issues of public interest, 4
render judgment: especially when time constraint is a factor to be considered, as in this case.
As held in GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections:5
a. Declaring null and void, for being unconstitutional, pertinent parts of the
Memorandum of Agreement that violate the rights of the Petitioner, Respondent claims that certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies
specifically Part VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 [of the that petitioners have taken to question the assailed Resolution of the
MOA]; COMELEC. Technically, respondent may have a point. However, considering
the very important and pivotal issues raised, and the limited time, such
b. Prohibiting the Respondent from implementing specifically Part VI (C), technicality should not deter the Court from having to make the final and
paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the MOA; definitive pronouncement that everyone else depends for enlightenment and
guidance. "[T]his Court has in the past seen fit to step in and resolve petitions
c. Pending resolution of this case, issuing a Preliminary Injunction enjoining despite their being the subject of an improper remedy, in view of the public
the Respondent from implementing Part VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI importance of the issues raised therein.6
(D), paragraph 20 of the MOA; and
The urgency to resolve this case is apparent considering that the televised
d. Pending resolution of this case, issuing a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction debates have already started and only two of the scheduled four national
requiring the Respondent to ensure an unimpaired and equal access to all debates remain to be staged.7 And considering the importance of the
mass media, online or traditional, to all the Debates.2 debates in informing the electorate of the positions of the presidential and
vice-presidential candidates on vital issues affecting the nation, this case falls
under the exception laid down in GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on
Part VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the MOA read:
Elections.
VI
Petitioner is a signatory to the MOA. In fact, the sole vice-presidential debate,
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD NETWORKS
to be held in Manila on 10 April 2016, will be sponsored by CNN Philippines
(owned and operated by Nine Media Corporation) and its partners Business
xxxx
Mirror and petitioner. Petitioner, however, is alleging that it is being
discriminated particularly as regards the MOA provisions on live audio
C. ONLINE STREAMING
broadcast via online streaming. Petitioner argues that the MOA grants radio
stations the right to simultaneously broadcast live the audio of the debates,
xxxx
even if the radio stations are not obliged to perform any obligation under the
MOA. Yet, this right to broadcast by live streaming online the audio of the
19. Subject to copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Lead
debates is denied petitioner and other online media entities, which also have
Networks, allow the debates they have produced to be shown or streamed
the capacity to live stream the audio of the debates. Petitioner insists that it
on other websites;
signed the MOA believing in good faith the issues it has raised will be
resolved by the COMELEC.
D. NEWS REPORTING AND FAIR USE
The provisions on Live Broadcast and Online Streaming under the MOA
20. Allow a maximum of two minutes of excerpt from the debates they have
read:
produced to be used for news reporting or fair use by other media or entities
as allowed by the copyright law: Provided, that the use of excerpts longer
VI
than two minutes shall be subject to the consent of the Lead Network
concerned;3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD NETWORKS

11
 x x x x
xxxx
(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of
B1. LIVE BROADCAST articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic,
lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are
10. Broadcast the debates produced by the Lead Networks in their respective delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not
television stations and other news media platforms; been expressly reserved; Provided, That the source is clearly indicated;
(Sec. 11, P.D. No. 49) (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
11. Provide a live feed of the debate to other radio stations, other than those
of the Lead Network's, for simultaneous broadcast; Under this provision, the debates fall under "addresses and other works of
the same nature." Thus, the copyright conditions for the debates are: (1) the
12. Provide a live feed of the debates produced by them to radio stations not reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of the
belonging to any of the Lead Networks for simultaneous broadcast; debates is for information purposes; (2) the debates have not been
expressly reserved by the Lead Networks (copyright holders); and (3) the
xxxx source is clearly indicated.

C. ONLINE STREAMING Condition 1 is complied because the live streaming by petitioner is obviously
for information purposes. Condition 2 is also complied because Part VI (C),
17. Live broadcast the debates produced by the Lead Networks on their paragraph 19 of the MOA expressly "allow[s] the debates x x x to be
respective web sites and social media sites for free viewing by the public; shown or streamed on other websites," including petitioner's website. This
means that the "reproduction or communication (of the debates) to the public
18. Maintain a copy of the debate produced by the Lead Network on its on- by mass media x x x has not been expressly reserved" or withheld. Condition
line site(s) for free viewing by the public during the period of elections or 3 is complied by clearly indicating and acknowledging that the source of the
longer; debates is one or more of the Lead Networks.

19. Subject to copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which expressly allows the debates
Lead Networks, allow the debates they have produced to be shown or produced by the Lead Networks to be shown or streamed on other websites,
streamed on other websites;8 (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied) clearly means that the Lead Networks have not "expressly reserved" or
withheld the use of the debate audio for online streaming. In short, the
Petitioner's demand to exercise the right to live stream the debates is a MOA expressly allows the live streaming of the debates subject only to
contractual right of petitioner under the MOA. Under Part VI (C), paragraph compliance with the "copyright conditions." Once petitioner complies with the
19 of the MOA, the Lead Networks are expressly mandated to "allow the copyright conditions, petitioner can exercise the right to live stream the audio
debates they have produced to be shown or streamed on other of the debates as expressly allowed by the MOA.
websites," but "subject to copyright conditions or separate
negotiations with the Lead Networks." The use of the word "or" means Under the MOA, the Lead Networks are mandated to promote the debates
that compliance with the "copyright conditions" is sufficient for petitioner to for maximum audience.9 The MOA recognizes the public function of the
exercise its right to live stream the debates in its website. debates and the need for the widest possible dissemination of the
debates. The MOA has not reserved or withheld the reproduction of the
The "copyright conditions" refer to the limitations on copyright as provided debates to the public but has in fact expressly allowed the reproduction
under Section 184.1(c) of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), thus: of the debates "subject to copyright conditions." Thus, petitioner may
live stream the debate in its entirety by complying with the "copyright
SEC. 184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of conditions," including the condition that "the source is clearly indicated" and
Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: that there will be no alteration, which means that the streaming will include
the proprietary graphics used by the Lead Networks. If petitioner opts for a

12
clean feed without the proprietary graphics used by the Lead Networks, in copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated. Due to the time
order for petitioner to layer its own proprietary graphics and text on the same, constraint, this Resolution is immediately executory.
then petitioner will have to negotiate separately with the Lead Networks.
Similarly, if petitioner wants to alter the debate audio by deleting the SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
advertisements, petitioner will also have to negotiate with the Lead Networks.

Once the conditions imposed under Section 184.1(c) of the IPC are complied
with, the information - in this case the live audio of the debates -now forms
part of the public domain. There is now freedom of the press to report or
publicly disseminate the live audio of the debates. In fact, the MOA
recognizes the right of other mass media entities, not parties to the MOA, to
reproduce the debates subject only to the same copyright conditions. The
freedom of the press to report and disseminate the live audio of the debates,
subject to compliance with Section 184.1(c) of the IPC, can no longer be
infringed or subject to prior restraint. Such freedom of the press to report and
disseminate the live audio of the debates is now protected and guaranteed
under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that "[N]o law
shall be passed abridging the freedom x x x of the press."

The presidential and vice-presidential debates are held primarily for the
benefit of the electorate to assist the electorate in making informed choices
on election day. Through the conduct of the national debates among
presidential and vice-presidential candidates, the electorate will have the
"opportunity to be informed of the candidates' qualifications and track record,
platforms and programs, and their answers to significant issues of national
concern."10 The political nature of the national debates and the public's
interest in the wide availability of the information for the voters' education
certainly justify allowing the debates to be shown or streamed in other
websites for wider dissemination, in accordance with the MOA.

Therefore, the debates should be allowed to be live streamed on other

websites, including petitioner's, as expressly mandated in Part VI (C),
paragraph 19 of the MOA. The respondent, as representative of the
COMELEC which provides over-all supervision under the MOA, including the
power to "resolve issues that may arise among the parties involved in the
organization of the debates,"11 should be directed by this Court to implement
Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which allows the debates to be shown
or live streamed unaltered on petitioner's and other websites subject to the
copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. Respondent Andres D.

Bautista, as Chairman of the COMELEC, is directed to implement Part VI
(C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, which allows the debates to be shown or live
streamed unaltered on petitioner's and other websites subject to the

13