CASE DIGEST

Get Started
CASE
DIGEST

Data Privacy
Cybercrime
Intellectual Property

Next Page
LAWYER

Our Team
Here are the best students who studied each case and prepared the presentation.

Apolonio, Jennelle Cayabyab, Jhon Bermundo,

F. Lester M. Frances Jiwel G.
GR No. 159787 Gr. No. 166115 Lawyer
 DATA PRIVACY ACT

What is Data Privacy Act?

The full title of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 is “An Act
Protecting Individual Personal Information in Information and
Communications Systems in the Government and the Private
Sector, Creating for this purpose a National Privacy
Commission, and for Other Purposes” (R.A. No. 10173).

The DPA protects individuals by mandating personal data

protection. Under this law, all those who collect, use or process
information that relates to an individual have certain obligations:
they have to adhere to data privacy principles, implement
security measures for data protection and uphold the rights of
data subjects. Violation of the Data Privacy Act may lead to
sanctions, including possible criminal penalties.

Next Page
 DATA PRIVACY ACT

G.R. No. 159787

OGIE DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

The apparent issue here is whether the subject article that

was written and published by the accused, Manny Pichel
and Ogie Diaz, is libelous or not. On December 28, 1991,
in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused, then the
managing editor and writer, respectively, of Bandera, a
newspaper of general circulation, conspired and
confederated together and mutually helped each other
with the malicious purpose of impeaching the integrity,
honor, and reputation of one Florinda Bagay.
 DATA PRIVACY ACT

Persons Involved
OGIE DIAZ & MANNY PICHEL VS.
FLORINDA BAGAY

The case involves three parties: Manny

Pichel, Oggie Diaz, the managing director
and editor of bandera who are accused of
information for libel, and Florinda Bagay,
the complainant, who asserted that she was
"Miss S," referred to in the petitioner's
column "Pakurot," given that her screen
name is "Patricia Santillan."
 DATA PRIVACY ACT

Nature of the Case

INFORMATION FOR LIBEL
AGAINST OGIE DIAZ AND
MANNY PICHEL

This case started in Dec. 28, 1991, when

petitioner Ogie Diaz published an article in
The sole issue for the resolution of the case is whether
his column “Pakurot,” on the tabloid
or not the subject article is libelous.
Bandera.
In line with this, for an imputation to be libelous, the
The said article contains the sexual activities
following requisites must be present: (a) it must be
of certain “Miss S” and Philip Henson, in
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be
which the words and phrases used in the
given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.
article meant and conveyed the malicious
imputation that this “Miss S” is a sexual
If these elements are not completely violated, then a
pervert and possesses lascivious and immoral
case fot libel will not prosper.
habits. Florinda Bagay, who happened to use
“Patricia Santillan” as her screen name, claims
that she is this “Miss S” being referred to in
the said article.
 DATA PRIVACY ACT

Resolution of the Case

G.OGIE DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Three of the four elements of libel were present in the

subject article, but in order to proceed with a libel lawsuit,
it is important to be able to identify the victim even
though it is not necessary to state their name explicitly.
That being said, the libelous article, while referring to
"Miss S," does not give a sufficient description or other
indications which identify "Miss S." In essence, the article
fails to show that "Miss S" and Florinda Bagay are one and
the same person.

Wherefore, the petition is granted. Thereby, petitioner

Oggie Diaz is acquitted of the crime of libel and the bail
on appeal posted for his temporary liberty is ordered
cancelled.
 DATA PRIVACY ACT

Proposed Explanation
OGIE DIAZ & MANNY PICHEL VS.
FLORINDA BAGAY

1. The first element of libel is explicitly present. In the subject article, the words used cast
aspersion upon the character, integrity, and reputation of "Miss S." The behavior
attributed to "Miss S" by the controversial article had tarnished both her reputation and
character in a society like ours where modesty is still highly valued among young ladies.

2. Regarding the element of malice, there is a presumption that the perpetrator acted with
intent because the item is defamatory on its face. Every defamatory allegation is assumed
to be malicious under Article 354 of the same Code if there is no evidence of justification
or good intent.

3. On the element of publication, there can be no question that the article appeared in the
December 28, 1991 issue of Bandera, a local tabloid.

4. Although the article is highly libelous, the lack of description about the identity of the
person being referred to as "Miss S" lead to the conclusion that Florinda Bagay could not
have been defamed.
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

What is Intellectual property?

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as
inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, and
images used in commerce. Intellectual property is protected by
legal rights, which typically allow the creator of the work to
prevent others from using or reproducing their creations
without permission.

Examples of intellectual property include inventions, such as

new technologies or devices; literary and artistic works, such as
books, films, and music; and symbols, names, and images used in
commerce, such as trademarks and branding. Other examples of
intellectual property include industrial designs, trade secrets, and
copyrights. These creations are typically protected by legal
rights, which allow the creators of the work to prevent others
from using or reproducing their creations without permission.

Next Page
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Gr. no. 166155

McDonald's Corporation vs MACJOY
FASTFOOD CORPORATION

The issues here is whether there is a confusing similarity between

the MCDONALD'S marks of the petitioner and the respondent's
"MACJOY & DEVICE" trademark when applied to Classes 29 and
30 of the International Classification of Goods, i.e., food and
ingredients of food. In 1991, a company called MacJoy Fastfood
Corporation filed an application with the Philippine Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) to register the trademark "MACJOY &
DEVICE" for use on various food products. McDonald's
Corporation, the American fast food company, opposed the
application, claiming that the "MACJOY & DEVICE" trademark
was too similar to their own corporate logo and trademarks, and
would likely cause confusion among consumers. In 1998, the IPO
rejected MacJoy's application, but this decision was later reversed
by the Court of Appeals (CA). The case is now before the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PERSONS INVOLVED

MCDONALD’S VS. MCJOY

CORPORATION

It appears that the two companies involved in the case are

McDonald's Corporation and MacJoy Fastfood Corporation.
McDonald's Corporation, the American fast food company, has
filed a notice of opposition to MacJoy's application to register
the trademark "MACJOY & DEVICE". MacJoy Fastfood
Corporation, a domestic corporation based in Cebu City, is the
applicant for the trademark. The case is currently before the
Supreme Court of the Philippines.
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

NATURE OF THE CASE

It appears that the nature of the case is a trademark dispute

between McDonald's Corporation and MacJoy Fastfood
Corporation. McDonald's Corporation has filed a notice of
opposition to MacJoy's application to register the trademark
"MACJOY & DEVICE", claiming that the trademark is too
similar to their own corporate logo and trademarks and would
cause confusion among consumers. The case is currently before
the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

RESOLUTIONS
The respondent refuted the allegations made by the petitioner and
asserted that it has been using the mark "MACJOY" in good faith
for a long time. It also claimed that it has spent a significant
amount of money promoting the mark extensively in tri-media,
particularly in Cebu City, where it had been operating long
before the petitioner opened an outlet there sometime in 1992,
and that its use of the mark would not cause confusion regarding
affiliation with the petitioner's restaurant services or products.

In a decision4 dated December 28, 1998, the IPO sustained the

petitioner's opposition and rejected the respondent's arguments,
reasoning that the dominance of the letter "M" and the prefixes
"Mac/Mc" in both the "MACJOY" and the "MCDONALDS"
marks lead to the conclusion that there is confusing similarity
between them, particularly since both are used on nearly the same
products falling under classes 29 and 30 of the International
Classification of Goods, i.e
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PROPOSED EXPLANATION
1. MacJoy is written in a round script, whereas McDonald's is
written in a single gothic stroke;

2. While the phrase "McDonald's" comes with an arched "M" in

gold hues and virtually no representation of a chicken, the word
"MacJoy" comes with a picture of a chicken head with a hat, bowtie,
and wings growing on both sides;

3. While "McDonald's" is written in a red, yellow, and black color

scheme, the word "MacJoy" is put in a deep pink and white color
scheme.

4. The parties' individual shops each have a completely distinct front.

Exhibits 1 and 1-A demonstrate that the [respondent's] restaurant is
decorated with the same striking color scheme as its wrappers,
containers, cups, etc., whereas the [petitioner's] restaurant is colored
in yellow and red with the "Ronald McDonald" logo prominently
visible (Words in brackets supplied.)
 CYBERCRIME

What is Cybercrime?
We all know what is Cybercrime if we gave the example but we
don't know that it is a cybercrime. Cybercrime are those crimes
that happens while using the computer or a computer network.
It also includes here if you are targeting someone through
computer or you're using the computer network to hurt or do
the crime

There are many example of cybercrime such as hacking,

phishing and other more. Mostly the cases for cybercrime are
invading someone's privacy, getting their personal information,
hacking someone's account to pretend that you're that someone,
getting the credit cards number and many more. Cybercrime is
common than you think it is. Cyber bullying is also an example
of Cybercrime.

Next Page
 CYBERCRIME

Gr. no. 195956

ABS-CBN CORPORATION vs FELIPE GOZON, GILBERTO
R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA L. FLORES, JESSICA A. SOHO,
GRACE DELA PENA-REYES, JOHN OLIVER T.
MANALASTAS, OTHERS

The issue here is whether the Gozon, Duavit, Flores, Soho, Dela
Pena, Manalastas and others did violate the Intellectual Property
Code wherein they played in the television what ABS-CBN
owned. Apparently the respondents get what the Reuter have and
made it in flash news and claimed that they didn't see that only
Reuter's international subscriber can use the clip. It is also said that
only it is in international and no one can use the clip in the
Philippines.
 CYBERCRIME

PERSONS INVOLVED

ABS-CBN CORPORATION VS. GMA

There are a lot of person involved in this case. The petitioner is

the ABS-CBN Corporation and the respondents are some
workers and officers of GMA7 which are: Felipe Gozon,
GMA-7 President; Gilberto R. Duavit, Jr., Executive Vice-
President; Marissa L. Flores, Vice-President for New and
Public Affairs; Jessica A. Soho, Director for News; Grace Dela
Peña-Reyes, Head of News and Public Affairs; John Oliver
Manalastas, Program Manager; and others.
 CYBERCRIME

NATURE OF THE CASE

The nature of the case is whether if it's copyrighted under the

law or they use it in fair use. Since the respondents showed a 5
second videos of an ABS-CBN clip, the ABS-CBN filed a
petition the copyright infringement for Sections 177 and 211
of the Intellectual Property Code.
 CYBERCRIME

RESOLUTIONS
The respondent at first claimed that didn't know that the clip was
by ABS-CBN and that's also the reason why they cut the clip
after 5 seconds. Respondents arguments are failed since they
know and experienced how the broadcasting is and maybe it's
also the "reason" why they cut the feed from Reuters
The supreme court then agreed that Dela-Pena Reyes and
Manalastas did commit the copyright infringement and Secretary
Agra did commit the grave abuse of discretion.
 CYBERCRIME

PROPOSED EXPLANATION
1. It is a copyright infringement since they didn't have the
permission of the clip even though it's only 5 seconds and it is said
that even though they are a client of Reuters, ABS-CBN made sure
that only international companies can use the clip and not locally.

2. Only Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas commited the copyright

infringement because they are in the broadcasting division.
Respondents Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho aren't active in
that case and they are not liable since the officers did not participate
in the act.

3. Secretary Agra also committed an error of jurisdiction because

news should be differentiated especially if the issue is about
rebroadcasting.
LAWYER

Thank you