MAE Page 1 of 5

IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 41 Habana v Robles

TOPIC: Copyright Infringement
[G.R. No. 131522. July 19, 1999.] demanded that they cease and desist from further selling and distributing to the
general public the infringed copies of respondent Robles’ works.
PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N.
FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL However, respondents ignored the demands, hence, on July 7, 1988, petitioners
TRADING CO., INC., Respondents. filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for "Infringement and/or
unfair competition with damages" 4 against private respondents. 5
DECISION
In the complaint, petitioners alleged that in 1985, respondent Felicidad C.
Robles being substantially familiar with the contents of petitioners’ works, and
PARDO, J.: without securing their permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed
certain portions of their book CET. The textual contents and illustrations of CET
were literally reproduced in the book DEP. The plagiarism, incorporation and
The case before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 to set aside the (a) reproduction of particular portions of the book CET in the book DEP, without the
decision of the Court of Appeals 2 , and (b) the resolution denying petitioners’ authority or consent of petitioners, and the misrepresentations of respondent
motion for reconsideration, 3 in which the appellate court affirmed the trial Robles that the same was her original work and concept adversely affected and
court’s dismissal of the complaint for infringement and/or unfair competition and substantially diminished the sale of the petitioners’ book and caused them actual
damages but deleted the award for attorney’s fees.chanrobles.com : virtual law damages by way of unrealized income.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
library
Despite the demands of the petitioners for respondents to desist from
The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library committing further acts of infringement and for respondent to recall DEP from
the market, respondents refused. Petitioners asked the court to order the
Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of submission of all copies of the book DEP, together with the molds, plates and
copyright registration covering their published works, produced through their films and other materials used in its printing destroyed, and for respondents to
combined resources and efforts, entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY render an accounting of the proceeds of all sales and profits since the time of its
(CET for brevity), Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE publication and sale.
FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1.
Respondent Robles was impleaded in the suit because she authored and
Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the directly committed the acts of infringement complained of, while respondent
author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published work entitled Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. was impleaded as the publisher and joint co-owner of
"DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 the copyright certificates of registration covering the two books authored and
(1985 edition) which book was covered by copyrights issued to them. caused to be published by respondent Robles with obvious connivance with one
another.
In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked
around various bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with the same On July 27, 1988, respondent Robles filed a motion for a bill of particulars 6
subject matter. By chance they came upon the book of respondent Robles and which the trial court approved on August 17, 1988. Petitioners complied with the
upon perusal of said book they were surprised to see that the book was desired particularization, and furnished respondent Robles the specific portions,
strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and inclusive of pages and lines, of the published and copyrighted books of the
illustrative examples in their own book, CET.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary petitioners which were transposed, lifted, copied and plagiarized and/or
otherwise found their way into respondent’s book.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books (CET and DEP),
petitioners found that several pages of the respondent’s book are similar, if not On August 1, 1988, respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. filed its answer to the
all together a copy of petitioners’ book, which is a case of plagiarism and complaint 7 and alleged that petitioners had no cause of action against Goodwill
copyright infringement. Trading Co., Inc. since it was not privy to the misrepresentation, plagiarism,
incorporation and reproduction of the portions of the book of petitioners; that
Petitioners then made demands for damages against respondents and also there was an agreement between Goodwill and the respondent Robles that
 MAE Page 2 of 5
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 41 Habana v Robles
TOPIC: Copyright Infringement
Robles guaranteed Goodwill that the materials utilized in the manuscript were "S.C. Adm. Order No. 124-92" 11
her own or that she had secured the necessary permission from contributors
and sources; that the author assumed sole responsibility and held the publisher On May 14, 1993, petitioners filed their notice of appeal with the trial court 12,
without any liability. and on July 19, 1993, the court directed its branch clerk of court to forward all
the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. 13
On November 28, 1988, respondent Robles filed her answer 8 , and denied the
allegations of plagiarism and copying that petitioners claimed. Respondent In the appeal, petitioners argued that the trial court completely disregarded their
stressed that (1) the book DEP is the product of her independent researches, evidence and fully subscribed to the arguments of respondent Robles that the
studies and experiences, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted books in issue were purely the product of her researches and studies and that
book; (2) DEP followed the scope and sequence or syllabus which are common the copied portions were inspired by foreign authors and as such not subject to
to all English grammar writers as recommended by the Association of Philippine copyright. Petitioners also assailed the findings of the trial court that they were
Colleges of Arts and Sciences (APCAS), so any similarity between the animated by bad faith in instituting the complaint. 14
respondents book and that of the petitioners was due to the orientation of the
authors to both works and standards and syllabus; and (3) the similarities may On June 27, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of
be due to the authors’ exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. The relevant portions of the
as guides."cralaw virtua1aw library decision state:chanrobles law library

Respondent interposed a counterclaim for damages on the ground that bad faith "It must be noted, however, that similarity of the allegedly infringed work to the
and malice attended the filing of the complaint, because petitioner Habana was author’s or proprietor’s copyrighted work does not of itself establish copyright
professionally jealous and the book DEP replaced CET as the official textbook of infringement, especially if the similarity results from the fact that both works deal
the graduate studies department of the Far Eastern University. 9chanrobles law with the same subject or have the same common source, as in this case.
library
Appellee Robles has fully explained that the portion or material of the book
During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation of facts 10 claimed by appellants to have been copied or lifted from foreign books. She has
and for the trial court to first resolve the issue of infringement before disposing of duly proven that most of the topics or materials contained in her book, with
the claim for damages. particular reference to those matters claimed by appellants to have been
plagiarized were topics or matters appearing not only in appellants and her
After the trial on the merits, on April 23, 1993, the trial court rendered its books but also in earlier books on College English, including foreign books, i.e.
judgment finding thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph Edmund Burke’s "Speech on Conciliation", Boerigs’ "Competence in English"
and Broughton’s, "Edmund Burke’s Collection." chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby orders that the
complaint filed against defendants Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., x x x
Inc. shall be DISMISSED; that said plaintiffs solidarily reimburse defendant
Robles for P20,000.00 attorney’s fees and defendant Goodwill for P5,000.00
attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs are liable for cost of suit. "Appellant’s reliance on the last paragraph on Section 11 is misplaced. It must
be emphasized that they failed to prove that their books were made sources by
IT IS SO ORDERED. appellee." 15

"Done in the City of Manila this 23rd day of April, The Court of Appeals was of the view that the award of attorneys’ fees was not
1993.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red proper, since there was no bad faith on the part of petitioners Habana Et. Al. in
instituting the action against respondents.
"(s/t) MARVIE R. ABRAHAM SINGSON
On July 12, 1997, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, 16 however, the
"Assisting Judge Court of Appeals denied the same in a Resolution 17 dated November 25,
1997.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
 MAE Page 3 of 5
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 41 Habana v Robles
TOPIC: Copyright Infringement
177.7 Other communication to the public of the work" 19
Hence, this petition.
The law also provided for the limitations on copyright,
In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
trial court’s decision.
"SECTION 184.1 Limitations on copyright. — Notwithstanding the provisions of
Petitioners raised the following issues: (1) whether or not, despite the apparent Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of
textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, respondents copyright:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
committed no copyright infringement; (2) whether or not there was animus
furandi on the part of respondent when they refused to withdraw the copies of (a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made
CET from the market despite notice to withdraw the same; and (3) whether or accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for
not respondent Robles abused a writer’s right to fair use, in violation of Section a charitable or religious institution or society; [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49]
11 of Presidential Decree No. 49. 18
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with
We find the petition impressed with merit.chanrobles.com : virtual law library 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,
The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that Presidential that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work are
Decree No. 49 was in force. At present, all laws dealing with the protection of mentioned; (Sec. 11 third par. P.D. 49)chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
intellectual property rights have been consolidated and as the law now stands,
the protection of copyrights is governed by Republic Act No. 8293. x x x
Notwithstanding the change in the law, the same principles are reiterated in the
new law under Section 177. It provides for the copy or economic rights of an (e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication
owner of a copyright as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph to the public, sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made by way of
illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That
"SECTION 177. Copy or Economic rights. — Subject to the provisions of the source and the name of the author, if appearing in the work is mentioned; 20
chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to
carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library In the above quoted provisions, "work" has reference to literary and artistic
creations and this includes books and other literary, scholarly and scientific
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work; works. 21

177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if
transformation of the work;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red not identical with the text of CET.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by On page 404 of petitioners’ Book 1 of College English for Today, the authors
sale or other forms of transfer of ownership; wrote:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, Items in dates and addresses:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
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 He died on Monday, April 15, 1975.
ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n)
Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,
177.5 Public display of the original or copy of the work;
Manila 22
177.6 Public performance of the work; and
On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English Today, they
 MAE Page 4 of 5
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 41 Habana v Robles
TOPIC: Copyright Infringement
wrote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof.
Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and
He died on Monday, April 25, 1975. occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and
infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this
Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila 23 connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the
owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by
On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on parallelism or repetition of statute on the owner of the copyright. 29
sentence structures, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
The respondents’ claim that the copied portions of the book CET are also found
"The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to in foreign books and other grammar books, and that the similarity between her
be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace style and that of petitioners can not be avoided since they come from the same
to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the background and orientation may be true. However, in this jurisdiction under Sec
empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing 184 of Republic Act 8293 it is provided that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
questions, or the precise marking of the boundary of a complex government. It is
simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the
sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. following shall not constitute infringement of copyright:chanrobles lawlibrary :
rednad
— Edmund Burke, "Speech on Criticism." 24
x x x
On page 100 of the book DEP 25 , also in the topic of parallel structure and
repetition, the same example is found in toto. The only difference is that
petitioners acknowledged the author Edmund Burke, and respondents did not. (c) 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
In several other pages 26 the treatment and manner of presentation of the topics newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided,
of DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET.cralawnad That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are
mentioned.
We believe that respondent Robles’ act of lifting from the book of petitioners
substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners’ copyrights. pirate, in such cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing any
copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not necessarily at his peril. 30
require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied.
If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, The next question to resolve is to what extent can copying be injurious to the
there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is author of the book being copied. Is it enough that there are similarities in some
appropriated. 27 sections of the books or large segments of the books are the same?chanrobles
virtual lawlibrary
In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from
the copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented several pages
is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have of the books CET and DEP that more or less had the same contents. It may be
been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly correct that the books being grammar books may contain materials similar as to
diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an some technical contents with other grammar books, such as the segment about
injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to the "Author Card." However, the numerous pages that the petitioners presented
constitute piracy. 28cralawnad showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were presented and the
identical examples can not pass as similarities merely because of technical
The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in consideration.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
 MAE Page 5 of 5
IPL - Midterm 2nd Set – 41 Habana v Robles
TOPIC: Copyright Infringement
ordered remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to receive evidence
The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be attributed to the fact of the parties to ascertain the damages caused and sustained by petitioners and
that both of them were exposed to the APCAS syllabus and their respective to render decision in accordance with the evidence submitted to it.chanrobles
academic experience, teaching approach and methodology are almost identical law library : red
because they were of the same background.
SO ORDERED.
However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the
same background in terms of teaching experience and orientation, it is not an CASE DIGEST
excuse for them to be identical even in examples contained in their books. The
similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued
case. How can similar/identical examples not be considered as a mark of of the book, College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles
copying? was the author of the book Developing English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners
found that several pages of the respondent's book are similar, if not all together
We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of a copy of petitioners' book. Habana et al. filed an action for damages and
pulling out from Goodwill bookstores the book DEP upon learning of petitioners’ injunction, alleging respondent’s infringement of copyrights, in violation of P.D.
complaint while pharisaically denying petitioners’ demand. It was further noted 49. They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with
that when the book DEP was re-issued as a revised version, all the pages cited the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted,
by petitioners to contain portion of their book College English for Today were copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET.
eliminated.
On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her
In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying own intellectual creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted
must produce an "injurious effect." Here, the injury consists in that respondent book and that the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to
Robles lifted from petitioners’ book materials that were the result of the latter’s fair use of copyrighted materials, as guides."
research work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She
circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any
petitioners as her source.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary liability. Later, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents
Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. In this appeal, petitioners submit that the
Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.
that respondent Robles committed. Petitioners’ work as authors is the product of
their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her own is ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.
injury enough In copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the
intellectual product of an author. This is precisely what the law on copyright HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are
protected, under Section 184.1 (b). Quotations from a published work if they are similar if not identical with the text of CET. The court finds that respondent
compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified by the purpose, including Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of
quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book
summaries are allowed provided that the source and the name of the author, if is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.
appearing on the work, are mentioned.
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP.
acknowledge petitioners Habana Et. Al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To allow another to copy the
The final product of an author’s toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.
book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44053 are SET ASIDE. The case is