Mae Alvie E.

Villahermosa
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
Saturday 6:00-8:00 PM
Copyright Midterm Case Digests
1. COLUMBIA PICTURES VS CA 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
Petitioners: Columbia Pictures, inc., Orion Pictures Corporation, Paramount
Pictures Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, United Artists
Corporation, Universisal City Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, and Warner
Brothers, Inc.
Respondents: Court of Appeals, Sunshine Home Video, Inc., and Danilo A.
Pelindario
Facts: Petitioners filed a formal complaint with the NBI for violation of PD No. 49.
Discrete surveillance was conducted including private respondent. A search
warrant was served on November14, 1987 against private respondent which
yielded video tapes of duly copyrighted motion pictures/films owned or exclusively
distributed by private petitioners.
Issue:
WON there was copyright infringement under PD 49, as amended?

Ruling/Held:
YES, there was copyright infringement under PD 49, as amended. The law
provides that even without prior registration and deposit of a work, the creator can
file action for infringement of its rights. Here, private petitioners are not registered
to do business in the Philippines but they are the creator of the said copyrighted
materials thus there was copyright infringement committed by the private
respondent.

2. LAKTAW VS PAGLINAWAN 44 PHIL 855 (1918)

Plaintiff-appellant:Pedro Serrano Laktaw
Defendant-appellee:Mamerto Paglinawan
Facts:
Plaintiff published a Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary in 1889. Defendant
reproduced the work of plaintiff without consent.
Issue:
WON there was copyright infringement.
Ruling/Held:
YES, there was copyright infringement. The Law provides that nobody may
reproduce another persons work without the owners consent. Here defendant
reproduce the work of plaintiff without consent hence there was copyright
infringement.

3. JOAQUIN, JR. VS. DRILON 302 SCRA 225 (1999)

Petitioners: Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr., and BJ Productions, Inc.
Respondents: Honorable Franklin Drilon, Gabriel Zosa, William Esposo, Felipe
Medina, Jr., and Casey Francisco
Facts:
Petitioner holds the Certificate of Copyright for the dating game show Rhoda and
Me. The show Its a Date was shown to have similar formatting with Rhoda and Me.
Issue:
WON the format or mechanics of a TV show is entitled to copyright protection.
Ruling/Held:

Page 1 of 5
Mae Alvie E. Villahermosa
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
Saturday 6:00-8:00 PM
NO, the format or mechanics of TV show is entitled to copyright protection.
The law provides the list of protected works. The format or mechanics of a TV
show is not included.

4. FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS VS. TAN, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)

Plaintiff-appellant: Filipino Society of Composes, Authors and Publishers, Inc.
Defendant-appelle: Benjamin Tan
Facts:
Tan hired professional singers and a combo to sing and play musical
compositions including Dahil Sa Iyo, Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin, Sapagkay Kami
Ay Tao Lamang, and The Nearness Of You in his restaurant without any license
or permission from the plaintiff-appellant.

Issue:
WON playing and singing of copyrighted musical compositions can be
considered as public performance for profit.
WON Tan can be held liable.
Ruling/Held:
YES, playing and singing of copyrighted musical composition can be
considered as public performance for profit. Here, the said materials was played
and sang in a restaurant which caters to the public thus it can be considered as a
public performance.
NO, Tan cannot be held liable. The law provides that an intellectual creation
should be copyrighted thirty days after its publication if made in Manila or within
sixty (60) days if made elsewhere. Here the said materials where published or
made available to public way before the said performance inTans restaurant thus
Tan cannot be held liable for infringement. (Note: This law is already amended and
in the new law, copyright is still available even if already published.)

5. SANTOS VS MCCULLOUGH PRINTING COMPANY 12 SCRA 321 (1964)

Plaintiff-appellant: Mauro Malang Santos
Defendant-appellee: McCullough Printing Company
Facts:
Santos alleges that defendant used, adapted and appropriated unauthorized his
intellectual creation or artistic design of a Christmas Card.
Issues:
1. WON Santos is entitled to protection even if he has not copyrighted his design.
2. WON the publication is limited, or general publication.
3. WON the provisions of the Civil Code or the Copyright Law should apply in the
case.
Ruling/Held:
1. NO, Santos is not entitled to protection. The law provides that an intellectual
property needs to be registered/copyrighted within 30 days after its publication
if made in Manila and 60 days if made elsewhere such that failure to copyright
renders the creation public property. Here Santos did not copyrighted his
creation thus he is not entitled to protection. (NOTE: This rule is already
amended such that even without registration, a person has copyright to his
intellectual creation from its moment of inception and expressing it.)
2. NO, the publication was not limited.

Page 2 of 5
Mae Alvie E. Villahermosa
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
Saturday 6:00-8:00 PM
3. YES, the provisions of the Copyright Laws should apply in this case. The law
provides that onece the works of an author or composer is publishes their
rights are governed by the Copyright laws.

6. HABANA VS. ROBLES G.R. NO. 131522, JULY 19, 1999

Petitioners: Pacita I. Habana, Alicia L. Cinco, and Jovita N. Fernando
Respondents: Felicidad C. Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc.
Facts:
Petitioner Habana is the author of a copyrighted book entitled College English for
Today (CET). Respondent Robles and Goodwill authored and published a book entitled
Developing English Proficiency (DEP).When Habana et al revised their work they
encountered the DEP book which is similar in contents, scheme of presentation,
illustrations and illustrative examples to their CET book.
Issue/s:
WON there was copyright infringement committed by Robles.
Ruling/Held:
YES, there was copyright infringement committed by Robles. The law provides
that there is infringement when the copying produces injurious effect. Here Habana was
injured when Robles lifted from CET book materials that were the result of Habanas
research work and compilation and misrepresented them as Robles own. Robles
circulated the DEP book for commercial use and did not acknowledge Habana as her
source.

7. MICROSOFT CORP. VS. HWANG, G.R. NO. 147043, JUNE 21, 2005
Petitiones: NBI, Microsoft Corporation & Lotus Development Corp.
Respondents: Judy C. Hwang, Benito Keh & Yvonne K. Chua/Beltron Computer Philippines
Inc., Jonathan K. Chua, Emily K. Chia, Benito T.Sanchez, Nancy I. Velasco, Alfonso Chua,
Alberto Chua, Sophia Ong, Deanna Chua/Taiwan MachineryDisplay & Trade Center, Inc.,
and The Secretary of Justice
Facts:
Microsoft owns the copyright and trademark to several software which are sold by
Beltron and TMTC through a Licensing Agreement with the Microsoft. The Agreement
allows Beltron and TMTC to reproduce and install no more than 1 copy of the Microsoft
software on each Customer System hard disk or Read Only Memory (ROM); distribute
directly and indirectly and license copies of the Product in object code form to end users
and to authorize Microsoft to terminate the contract if the other fails to comply with any
of the Agreements provisions. Microsoft terminated the Agreement on June 22 1995 for
Beltrons non-payment of royalties. Afterwards Microsoft learned that Beltron was
illegally copying and selling Microsoft software.
Issue/s:
WON Beltron and TMC are liable for copyright infringement and unfair competition.
Ruling/Held:
YES, Beltron and TMC are liable for copyright infringement and unfair competition.
The law provides that copyright infringement is the unauthorized performance of any of
the acts covered by Section 5 which in turn renders the person cavilling and criminally
liable for copyright infringement. Here Beltron and TMC illegally copies and sold
Microsoft software even without authority or license from the Microsoft Company hence
they are liable for copyright infringement and unfair competition.

Page 3 of 5
Mae Alvie E. Villahermosa
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
Saturday 6:00-8:00 PM

8. ABS-CBN vs. Phil. Multi-Media System Inc., G.R. No. 175769-70, Jan. 19, 2009
Petitioners: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Respondents: Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI), Cesar G. Reyes, Francis Chua
(Ang Biao), Manuel F. Abellada, Raul B. De Mesa, and Aloysius M. Colayco
Facts:
Petitioner ABS-CBN is licensed to engage in television and radio broadcasting. PMSI
delivers digital direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to all its subscriber all over
the Philippines. PMSI was also granted franchise the NTC to install, operate and maintain
a nationwide DTH satellite service which includes rebroadcasting of shows including
those of ABS-CBN.
Issue/s:
1. WON the rebroadcasting of PMSI infringes ABS-CBNs copyright over said shows.
2. WON MC No. 04-08-88 excludes DTH satellite television operations.
Ruling/Held:
1. NO, PMSI did not infringe on ABS-CBNs copyright. The law provides that
broadcasting is the transmission by wireless means for the public of images or of
representations thereof. Here PMSI did not qualify as broadcasting organization
because they merely carry such signals in which viewers receive it in its unaltered
form.
2. NO, MC No. 04-08-88 does not exclude DTH satellite television operation. The law
provides that DTH satellite television service provider are under obligation to
implement must carry provision.

9. CHING VS. SALINAS, G.R. NO. 161295, JUNE 29, 2005

Petitioner: Jessie G. Ching
Respondents: William M. Salinas, Sr., William M. Salinas, Jr., Josephine L. Salinas, Jennifer
Y. Salinas, Alonto Solaiman Salle, John Eric I. Salinas, Noel M. Yabut (Board of Directors
and Officers of Wilaware Product Corporation)

Facts:
Petitioner Ching owns the maker and manufacturer of a utility model described as Leaf
Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile. Respondents were found to be reproducing and
distributing the said models without Chings authorization.

Issue:
WON the Utility Model Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is covered by the
Copyright of the Intellectual Property Code.

Ruling/Held:
NO, utility models are not covered by the Copyright Law. The law provides that Copyright
Law protects literary or artistic works. The said utility model is neither of those thus they
are not covered by the Copyright Law.

10. SONY CORP. OF AMERICA V. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. 464 U.S. 417 (US CASE)
Otherwise known as the Betamax case
Petitioner: Sony Corporation of America
Respondent: Universal City Studios, Inc.
Facts:

Page 4 of 5
Mae Alvie E. Villahermosa
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
Saturday 6:00-8:00 PM
Petitioner Sony manufactures home videotape recorders (VTRs). Respondents own the
copyrights on some TV programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Respondents
alleged that consumers are recording respondents copyrighter works through VTR.

Issue:
WON there was copyright infringement committed by petitioner Sony.

Ruling/Held:
NO, there was no copyright infringement committed by petitioner Sony. The one who
supplies the way to accomplish an infringing activity is not liable for copyright
infringement. Here, there is no precedent that Sony sold the VTRs with constructive
knowledge that its customers might use the equipment to make unauthorized copies of
copyrighted material.

Page 5 of 5