6/23/2017 G.R.No.

108946

TodayisFriday,June23,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.108946January28,1999

FRANCISCOG.JOAQUIN,JR.,andBJPRODUCTIONS,INC.,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLEFRANKLINDRILON,GABRIELZOSA,WILLIAMESPOSO,FELIPEMEDINA,JR.,andCASEY
FRANCISCO,respondents.

MENDOZA,J.:

Thisisapetitionforcertiorari.PetitionersseektoannultheresolutionoftheDepartmentofJustice,datedAugust
12,1992,inCriminalCaseNo.Q9227854,entitled"GabrielZosa,etal.v.CityProsecutorofQuezonCityand
Francisco Joaquin, Jr.," and its resolution, dated December 3, 1992, denying petitioner Joaquin's motion for
reconsideration.

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. M922, dated January
28,1971,ofRhodaandMe,adatinggameshowairedfrom1970to1977.

On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright
specifyingtheshow'sformatandstyleofpresentation.

On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN
Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he
wrotealettertoprivaterespondentGabrielM.Zosa,presidentandgeneralmanagerofIXL,informingZosathat
BJPIhadacopyrighttoRhodaandMeanddemandingthatIXLdiscontinueairingIt'saDate.

In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to petitioner Joaquin and requested a
meetingtodiscussapossiblesettlement.IXL,however,continuedairingIt'saDate,promptingpetitionerJoaquin
tosendasecondletteronJuly25,1991inwhichhereiteratedhisdemandandwarnedthat,ifIXLdidnotcomply,
hewouldendorsethemattertohisattorneysforproperlegalaction.

Meanwhile,privaterespondentZosasoughttoregisterIXL'scopyrighttothefirstepisodeofIt'saDateforwhichit
wasissuedbytheNationalLibraryacertificateofcopyrightAugust14,1991.

Upon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was filed against private respondent
Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9, namely, William Esposo, Felipe Medina, and Casey
Francisco,intheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCitywhereitwasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.9227854and
assigned to Branch 104 thereof. However, private respondent Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the
AssistantCityProsecutorbeforetheDepartmentofJustice.

OnAugust12,1992,respondentSecretaryofJusticeFranklinM.DrilonreversedtheAssistantCityProsecutor's
findingsanddirectedhimtomoveforthedismissalofthecaseagainstprivaterespondents.1

PetitionerJoaquinfiledamotionforreconsideration,buthismotiondeniedbyrespondentSecretaryofJusticeon
December3,1992.Hence,thispetition.Petitionerscontendthat:

1.Thepublicrespondentgravelyabusedhisdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction
whenheinvokednonpresentationofthemastertapeasbeingfataltotheexistence
ofprobablecausetoproveinfringement,despitethefactthatprivaterespondentsnever
raisedthesameasacontrovertedissue.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 1/7
6/23/2017 G.R.No.108946

2.Thepublicrespondentgravelyabusedhisdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction
whenhearrogateduntohimselfthedeterminationofwhatiscopyrightableanissue
whichisexclusivelywithinthejurisdictionoftheregionaltrialcourttoassessinaproper
proceeding.

Bothpublicandprivaterespondentsmaintainthatpetitionersfailedtoestablishtheexistenceofprobablecause
duetotheirfailuretopresentthecopyrightedmastervideotapeofRhodaandMe. They contend that petitioner
BJPI'scopyrightcoversonlyaspecificepisodeofRhodaandMeandthattheformatsorconceptsofdatinggame
showsarenotcoveredbycopyrightprotectionunderP.D.No.49.

NonAssignmentofError.

Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the copyrighted master videotape of the television show Rhoda and
Mewasnotraisedinissuebyprivaterespondentsduringthepreliminaryinvestigationand,therefore,itwaserror
fortheSecretaryofJusticetoreversetheinvestigatingprosecutor'sfindingofprobablecauseonthisground.

Apreliminaryinvestigationfallsundertheauthorityofthestateprosecutorwhoisgivenbylawthepowertodirect
andcontrolcriminal
actions.2Heis,however,subjecttothecontroloftheSecretaryofJustice.Thus,Rule112,4oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,provides:

Sec.4.Dutyofinvestigatingfiscal.Iftheinvestigatingfiscalfindscausetoholdtherespondentfor
trial,heshallpreparetheresolutionandcorrespondinginformation.Heshallcertifyunderoaththat
he,orasshownbytherecord,anauthorizedofficer,haspersonallyexaminedthecomplainantand
hiswitnesses,thatthereisreasonablegroundtobelievethatacrimehasbeencommittedandthat
the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the
evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting
evidence.Otherwise,heshallrecommenddismissalofthecomplaint.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
prosecutorwithinfive(5)daysfromhisresolution.Thelattershalltakeappropriateactionthereonten
(10)daysfromreceiptthereof,immediatelyinformingthepartiesofsaidaction.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior
writtenauthorityorapprovaloftheprovincialorcityfiscalorchiefstateprosecutor.

Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are
reversedbytheprovincialorcityfiscalorchiefstateprosecutoronthegroundthataprobablecause
exists,thelattermay,byhimself,filethecorrespondinginformationagainsttherespondentordirect
any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary
investigation.

Ifuponpetitionbyaproperparty,theSecretaryofJusticereversestheresolutionoftheprovincialor
city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding
informationwithoutconductinganotherpreliminaryinvestigationortodismissormovefordismissal
ofthecomplaintorinformation.

In reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from considering errors,
althoughunassigned,forthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherthereisprobablecauseforfilingcasesincourt.He
must make his own finding, of probable cause and is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during
preliminaryinvestigation.Moreover,hisfindingsarenotsubjecttoreviewunlessshowntohavebeenmadewith
graveabuse.

OpinionoftheSecretaryofJustice

Petitionerscontend,however,thatthedeterminationofthequestionwhethertheformatormechanicsofashow
is entitled to copyright protection is for the court, and not the Secretary of Justice, to make. They assail the
followingportionoftheresolutionoftherespondentSecretaryofJustice:

[T]heessenceofcopyrightinfringementisthecopying,inwholeorinpart,ofcopyrightablematerials
asdefinedandenumeratedinSection2ofPD.No.49.Apartfromthemannerinwhichitisactually
expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is, in the opinion of this Office, a non
copyrightablematerial.Ideas,concepts,formats,orschemesintheirabstractformclearlydonotfall
withintheclassofworksormaterialssusceptibleofcopyrightregistrationasprovidedinPD.No.49.
3(Emphasisadded.)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 2/7
6/23/2017 G.R.No.108946

It is indeed true that the question whether the format or mechanics of petitioners television show is entitled to
copyright protection is a legal question for the court to make. This does not, however, preclude respondent
Secretary of Justice from making a preliminary determination of this question in resolving whether there is
probablecauseforfilingthecaseincourt.Indoingsointhiscase,hedidnotcommitanygraveerror.

PresentationofMasterTape

Petitioners claim that respondent Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in ruling that the master
videotape should have been predented in order to determine whether there was probable cause for copyright
4 on which
infringement. They contend that 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
respondent Secretary of Justice relied in reversing the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor, is inapplicable to the case at bar because in the present case, the parties
presentedsufficientevidencewhichclearlyestablish"linkagebetweenthecopyrightshow
"RhodaandMe"andtheinfringingTVshow"It'saDate."5
Thecaseof20thCenturyFoxFilmCorporationinvolvedraidsconductedonvariousvideotapeoutletsallegedlly
sellingorrentingout"pirated"videotapes.ThetrialcourtfoundthattheaffidavitsofNBIagents,giveninsupport
oftheapplicationforthesearchwarrant,wereinsufficientwithoutthemastertape.Accordingly,thetrialcourtlifted
thesearchwarrantsithadpreviouslyissuedagainstthedefendants.Onpetitionforreview,thisCourtsustained
theactionofthetrialcourtandruled:6

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were
allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their
possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the
mastertapesatthetimeofapplicationmaynotbenecessaryasthesewouldbemerelyevidentiaryin
natureandnotdeterminativeofwhetherornotaprobablecauseexiststojustifytheissuanceofthe
search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were
necessarilyreproducedfrommastertapesthatitowns.

The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were
engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner
pursuanttoP.D.49.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the
purportedpiratedworkstothecopyrightedwork.Hence,theapplicantmustpresenttothecourtthe
copyrightedfilmstocomparethemwiththepurchasedevidenceofthevideotapesallegedlypirated
to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the
copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable
cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the
issuanceofasearchwarrant.

ThisrulingwasqualifiedinthelatercaseofColumbiaPictures,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals7 inwhichit
washeld:
Infine,thesupposedpronunciamentoinsaidcaseregardingthenecessityforthepresentationofthe
master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of search warrants should at most be
understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in
copyrightinfringementcaseswherethereisdoubtastothetruenexusbetweenthemastertapeand
the printed copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no
other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible
requirementinallorsimilarcopyrightinfringementcases...8

In the case at bar during the preliminary investigation, petitioners and private respondents presented written
descriptionsoftheformatsoftheirrespectivetelevisionsshows,onthebasisofwhichtheinvestigatingprosecutor
ruled:

As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the television productions
complainant's"RHODAANDME"andZosa's"IT'SADATE"isthattwomatchesaremadebetweena
male and a female, both single, and the two couples are treated to a night or two of dining and/or

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 3/7
6/23/2017 G.R.No.108946

dancingattheexpenseoftheshow.Themajorconceptsofbothshowsisthesame.Anydifference
appearmerevariationsofthemajorconcepts.

Thatthereisaninfringementonthecopyrightoftheshow"RHODAANDME"bothincontentandin
the execution of the video presentation are established because respondent's "IT'S A DATE" is
practically an exact copy of complainant's "RHODA AND ME" because of substantial similarities as
follows,towit:

RHODAANDME "IT'SADATE"
Set1 Set1
a.Unmarriedparticipantofonegender(searcher) a.same
appearsononesideofadivider,whilethree(3)
unmarriedparticipantsoftheothergenderareon
theothersideofthedivider.Thisarrangementis
donetoensurethatthesearcherdoesnotseethe
searchees.
b.Searcherasksaquestiontobeansweredby b.same
eachofthesearchees.Thepurposeistodetermine
whoamongthesearcheesisthemostcompatible
withthesearcher.
c.Searcherspeculatesonthematchtothe c.same
searchee.
d.Selectionismadebytheuseofcompute(sic) d.SelectionisbasedontheansweroftheSearchees.
methods,orbythewayquestionsareanswered,or
similarmethods.
Set2 Set2
Sameasabovewiththegendersofthesearcher same
andsearcheesinterchanged.9

Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to
copyrightprotection.Itistheirpositionthatthepresentationofapointbypointcomparisonoftheformatsofthe
twoshowsclearlydemonstratesthenexusbetweentheshowsandhenceestablishestheexistenceofprobable
causeforcopyrightinfringement.Suchbeingthecase,theydidnothavetoproducethemastertape.

To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, 10otherwiseknownas
theDECREE ON INTELLECTUALPROPERTY,enumeratestheclassesofworkentitled
tocopyrightprotection,towit:

Sec.2.TherightsgrantedbythisDecreeshall,fromthemomentofcreation,subsistwithrespectto
anyofthefollowingclassesofworks:

(A)Books,includingcompositeandcyclopedicworks,manuscripts,directories,andgazetteers:

(B)Periodicals,includingpamphletsandnewspapers

(C)Lectures,sermons,addresses,dissertationspreparedfororaldelivery

(D)Letters

(E) Dramatic or dramaticomusical compositions choreographic works and entertainments in dumb

shows,theactingformofwhichisfixedinwritingorotherwise

(F)Musicalcompositions,withorwithoutwords

(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other works of
artmodelsordesignsforworksofart

(H)Reproductionsofaworkofart

(I)Originalornamentaldesignsormodelsforarticlesofmanufacture,whetherornotpatentable,and
otherworksofappliedart

(J)Maps,plans,sketches,andcharts

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 4/7
6/23/2017 G.R.No.108946

(K)Drawingsorplasticworksofascientificortechnicalcharacter

(I)Photographicworksandworksproducedbyaprocessanalogoustophotographylanternslides

(M)Cinematographicworksandworksproducedbyaprocessanalogoustocinematographyorany
processformakingaudiovisualrecordings

(N)Computerprograms

(O)Prints,pictorialillustrationsadvertisingcopies,labelstags,andboxwraps

(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements and other alterations of

literary, musical or artistic works or of works of the Philippine government as herein defined, which
shallbeprotectedasprovidedinSection8ofthisDecree.

(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of works referred to in Section 9 of this
Decree which by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual
creations,thesametobeprotectedassuchinaccordancewithSection8ofthisDecree.

(R)Otherliterary,scholarly,scientificandartisticworks.

This provision is substantially the same as 172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF PHILIPPINES
(R.A.No.8293). 11Theformatormechanicsofatelevisionshowisnotincludedinthelistof
protectedworksin2ofP.D.No.49.Forthisreason,theprotectionaffordedbythelaw
cannotbeextendedtocoverthem.

Copyright,inthestrictsenseoftheterm,ispurelyastatutoryright.Itisaneworindependentright
grantedbythestatute,andnotsimplyapreexistingrightregulatedbythestatute.Beingastatutory
grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with
respecttothesubjectsandbythepersonsandontermsandconditionsspecifiedinthestatute.12

Since...copyrightinpublishedworksispurelyastatutorycreation,acopyright
may be obtained only for a work falling within the statutory enumeration or
description.13
Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled in the United
Statesthatthereisnocopyrightexceptthatwhichisbothcreatedandsecured
byactofCongress.....14

P.D.No.49,2,inenumeratingwhataresubjecttocopyright,referstofinishedworksandnottoconcepts.The
copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery,regardlessoftheforminwhichitisdescribed,explained,illustrated,orembodiedinsuchwork.15 Thus,
thenewINTELLECTUALPROPERTYCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINESprovides:

Sec.175.UnprotectedSubjectMatter.NotwithstandingtheprovisionsofSections172and173,no
protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation,
concept,principle,discoveryormeredataassuch,eveniftheyareexpressed,explained,illustrated
orembodiedinaworknewsofthedayandothermiscellaneousfactshavingthecharacterofmere
itemsofpressinformationoranyofficialtextofalegislative,administrativeorlegalnature,aswellas
anyofficialtranslationthereof.

What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPI's
copyright covers audiovisual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works
mentionedinP.D.49,2(M),towit:

Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any

processformakingaudiovisualrecordings

The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show. Accordingly, by
the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright, the investigating prosecutor should have the
opportunitytocomparethevideotapesofthetwoshows.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 5/7
6/23/2017 G.R.No.108946

Meredescriptionbywordsofthegeneralformatofthetwodatinggameshowsisinsufficientthepresentationof
themastervideotapeinevidencewasindispensabletothedeterminationoftheexistenceofprobablecause.As
aptlyobservedbyrespondentSecretaryofJustice:

Atelevisionshowincludesmorethanmerewordscandescribebecauseitinvolvesawholespectrum
ofvisualsandeffects,videoandaudio,suchthatnosimilarityordissimilaritymaybefoundbymerely
describingthegeneralcopyright/formatofbothdatinggameshows.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSED

SOORDERED. 1 w p h i1 .n t

Puno,QuisumbingandBuena,JJ.,concur.

Bellosillo,J.,tooknopart.
Footnotes

1Petition,AnnexA,p.4Rollo,p.27..

2SangguniangBayanofBatac,IlocosNortev.Albano,260SCRA561(1996)

3Petition,AnnexB,pp.12Rollo,pp.2829.

4164SCRA655(1988).

5Petition,p.17Rollo,p.18.

6Id.,at663664.

7261SCRA144(1996).

8Id.,173.

9PetitionAnnex"G"Rollo,pp.4445.

10PromulgatedonNovember14,1972.

11EffectiveonJanuary1,1998.

Sec.172.LiteraryandArtisticWorks.172.1.Literaryandartisticworks,hereinafterreferredtoas
"works",areoriginalintellectualcreationsintheliteraryandartisticdomainprotectedfromthe
momentoftheircreationandshallincludeinparticular:

(a)Books,pamphlets,articlesandotherwritings

(b)Periodicalsandnewspapers

(c)Lectures,sermons,addresses,dissertationspreparedfororaldeliverywhetherornotreducedin
writingorothermaterialform

(d)Letters

(e)Dramaticordramaticomusicalcompositionschoreographicworksorentertainmentindumb
shows

(f)Musicalcompositions,withorwithoutwords

(g)Worksofdrawing,painting,architecture,sculpture,engraving,lithographyorotherworksofart
modelsordesignsforworksofart

(h)Originalornamentaldesignsormodelsforarticlesofmanufacture,whetherornotregistrableas
anindustrialdesignandotherworksofappliedart

(i)Illustrations,maps,plans,sketches,chartsandthreedimensionalworksrelativetogeography,
topography,architectureorscience

(j)Drawingsorplasticworksofascientificortechnicalcharacter

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 6/7
6/23/2017 G.R.No.108946

(k)Photographicworksincludingworksproducedbyaprocessanalogoustophotographylantern
slides

(l)Audiovisualworksandcinematographicworksandworksproducedbyaprocessanalogousto
cinematographyoranyprocessformakingaudiovisualrecording

(m)Pictorialillustrationsandadvertisements

(n)Computerprogramsand

(o)Otherliterary,scholarly,scientificandartisticworks.

1218C.J.S.161.

13Id.,at165.

14HORACEG.BALL,LAWOFCOPYRIGHTANDLITERARYPROPERTY45(1944).

15NEILBOORSTYN,COPYRIGHTLAW25(1981).

16CommentofPublicRespondent,p.9Rollo,p.152.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_108946_1999.html 7/7