7/28/2019 Case Digestintellectual property law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digestintellectual-property-law 1/2

(read dissenting opinions) PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDOvs. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC .

G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999

FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued of the book,College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles was the author of the bookDeveloping English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the respondent'sbook are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book. Habana et al. filed an action for damages and injunction, alleging respondent’s infringement of copyrights, in violation of P.D. 49.They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET.

On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her own intellectualcreation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book and that the similarities maybe due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as guides."

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any liability. Later, the Courtof Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. Inthis appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.

HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if notidentical with the text of CET. The court finds that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the bookof petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge

the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.

In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledgepetitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author'stoil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injuryenough.

Manly Sportswear vs. Dadodette Enterprises

Facts:

The NBI secured a search warrant on March 14, 2003 from the RTC to act upon the informationthat respondents were in possession of goods copyright of which belongs to the petitioner.Finding reasonable grounds in violation of Section 172 and 217 of RA 8293 a search warrant

was issued. Respondents move to quash and annul the search warrant contending it is invalidand the requisites for its issuance are not complied with. They insist that the sporting goodsmanufactured and registered in the name MANLY is just ordinary and common and not amongthe classes protected under RA 8293. The court granted the motion to quash declaring thesearch warrant null and void because there were certificates of registrations issued earlier than MANLY for the same sporting goods under various brands thereby negating the fact thattheir products are copyrighted and original creations. Motion for reconsideration was denied bythe appellate court sustaining the lower court’s decision thus this instant petition for reviewfor certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the certificate of registration in favor of MANLY sustains the action against therespondents.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the petitioner is not protected by the copyright law despite the issuance of the copyright certificate of registration as it merely gives prima facie evidence of the validity andownership. Therefore if the there are sufficient evidence that the copyrighted products are notoriginal creations and are readily available in the market under various brands, validity andoriginality will not be presumed therefore the trial court has the right to quash the issued warrantfor lack of probable cause. Moreover no copyright accrues to the petitioner since Sec. 2, Rule 7of the Copyrights Safeguards and Regulations provides that the registration and depositofwork is purely for recording the date of registration and is not conclusive as to the copyrightownership. It is not a proof of copyright ownership and non-payment for registration within theprescribed period shall only make the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.

ABS-CBN vs. PMSI, G.R. No. 175769-70 (19 Jan 2009)

Post under  case digests, Political Law at Wednesday, January 25, 2012 Posted

by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: ABS-CBN is engaged in television and radio broadcasting through wireless and satellite

means while Philippine Multi-Media Systems Inc. (“PMSI” for brevity), the operator  of 

DreamBroadcasting System provides direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to its

subscribers all over the Philippines.

PMSI was granted legislative franchise under RA 8630 to install, operate and maintain a

nationwide DTH satellite service and is obligated under by NTC Memorandum Circular No. 4-08-

88, Section 6.2 of which requires all cable television system operators operating in a community

within Grade “A” or “B” contours to carry the television signals of the authorized television

broadcast stations(“must-carry rule”). 

 ABS-CBN filed a complaint with Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for violation of laws involving

property rights. It alleged that PMSI’s unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23

infringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright and that the NTC circular only covers cable

television system operators and not DTH satellite television operators. Moreover, NTC Circular 

4-08-88 violates Sec. 9 of Art. III of the Constitution because it allows the taking of property for 

public use without payment of just compensation.

7/28/2019 Case Digestintellectual property law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digestintellectual-property-law 2/2

 

PMSI argued that its rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is sanctioned by Memorandum

Circular No. 04-08-88; that the must-carry rule under the Memorandum Circular is a valid

exercise of police power.

IPO and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of PMSI.

Issues:

(1) w/n PMSI infringed on ABS-CBN’s broadcasting rights and copyright 

(2) w/n PMSI is covered by the NTC Circular (“must -carry rule”) 

(3) Whether NTC Circular 4-08-88 violates Sec. 9 of Art. III of the Constitution because it allows

the taking of property for public use without payment of just compensation or it is a valid exercise

of police power.

Held:

(1) NO. PMSI does not infringe on ABS-CBN’s broadcasting rights under the IP Code as PMSI is

not engaged in rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23. Rebroadcasting, which is prohibited by the

IP Code, is “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of 

another broadcasting organization.” ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own signals; PMSI

merely carries such signals which the viewers receive in its unaltered form. PMSI does not

produce, select, or determine the programs to be shown in Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does

not pass itself off as the origin or author of such programs. Insofar as Channels 2 and 23 are

concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in accordance with NTC Memorandum Circular 

04-08-88.

(2) YES. “DTH satellite tv operators” is covered under the NTC Circular which “requires all cable

television system operators… to carry the television signals of the authorized television

broadcast stations”. The Director -General of the IPO and the Court of Appeals correctly found

that PMSI’s services are similar to a cable television system because the services it renders fall

under cable “retransmission”. Thus, PMSI, being a DTH Satellite TV operator is covered by the

NTC Circular.

(3) The carriage of ABS-CBN’s signals by virtue of the must -carry rule in Memorandum Circular 

No. 04-08-88 is under the direction and control of the government though the NTC which is

vested with exclusive jurisdiction to supervise, regulate and control telecommunications and

broadcast services/facilities in the Philippines. The imposition of the must-carry rule is within the

NTC’s power to promulgate rules and regulations, as public safety and interest may require, to

encourage a larger and more effective use of communications, radio and television broadcasting

facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private entities.