[G.R. No. 161295.

June 29, 2005]

JESSIE G. CHING, petitioner, vs. WILLIAM M. SALINAS, SR., WILLIAM M. SALINAS, JR., JOSEPHINE L. SALINAS, JENNIFER . SALINAS, ALON!O SOLAIMAN SALLE, JOHN ERIC I. SALINAS, NOEL M. A"#! $"o%&' o( )*&e+,o&- %n' O((*+e&- o( WILAWARE PRO)#C! CORPORA!ION., respondents. )ECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J./

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G R !" #o $%&11 affir'in( the )anuar* +, 2%%2 and -e.ruar* 1&, 2%%2 /rders [+] of the Re(ional Trial Court (RTC) of 0anila, 1ranch 1, which 2uashed and set aside !earch 3arrant #os %1-2&%1 and %1-2&%2 (ranted in favor of petitioner )essie G Chin( )essie G Chin( is the owner and (eneral 'ana(er of )eshicris 0anufacturin( Co , the 'a4er and 'anufacturer of a 5tilit* 0odel, descri.ed as 67eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( for Auto'o.ile9 'ade up of plastic /n !epte'.er &, 2%%1, Chin( and )oseph :u were issued .* the #ational 7i.rar* Certificates of Cop*ri(ht Re(istration and Deposit of the said wor4 descri.ed therein as 67eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( for Auto'o.ile 9[&] /n !epte'.er 2%, 2%%1, Chin( re2uested the #ational 1ureau of ;nvesti(ation (#1;) for police<investi(ative assistance for the apprehension and prosecution of ille(al 'anufacturers, producers and<or distri.utors of the wor4s [=] After due investi(ation, the #1; filed applications for search warrants in the RTC of 0anila a(ainst 3illia' !alinas, !r and the officers and 'e'.ers of the 1oard of Directors of 3ilaware "roduct Corporation ;t was alle(ed that the respondents therein reproduced and distri.uted the said 'odels penali>ed under !ections 1$$ 1 and 1$$ + of Repu.lic Act (R A ) #o ?2@+ The applications sou(ht the sei>ure of the followin(A
a) 5ndeter'ined 2uantit* of 7eaf sprin( e*e .ushin( for auto'o.ile that are 'ade up of plastic pol*prop*leneB

.) c) d) e)

5ndeter'ined 2uantit* of 7eaf sprin( e*e .ushin( for auto'o.ile that are 'ade up of pol*vin*l chloride plasticB 5ndeter'ined 2uantit* of Cehicle .earin( cushion that is 'ade up of pol*vin*l chloride plasticB 5ndeter'ined 2uantit* of Dies and Di(s, patterns and flas4s used in the 'anufacture<fa.rication of ite's a to dB 8vidences of sale which include deliver* receipts, invoices and official receipts [E]

The RTC (ranted the application and issued !earch 3arrant #os %12&%1 and %1-2&%2 for the sei>ure of the aforecited articles [$] ;n the inventor* su.'itted .* the #1; a(ent, it appears that the followin( articles<ite's were sei>ed .ased on the search warrantsA Leaf Spring eye bushing
a) "lastic "ol*prop*lene - C1@% - C2&% rear - C2&% front .) "ol*vin*l Chloride "lastic - C1@% c) Cehicle .earin( cushion - center .earin( cushion 2$ F &% F &1 F 1+ F 11 F

1AG 1

Budder for C190 mold Diesel Mold

a) .) c) d) 0old for sprin( e*e .ushin( rear 0old for sprin( e*e .ushin( front 0old for sprin( e*e .ushin( for C1@% 1 set 0old for C2&% rear

8 }
1 set 1 set 1 piece of the set 2 sets 1 set 1 set[?]

e) 0old for sprin( e*e .ushin( for 7+%% f) 0old for leaf sprin( e*e .ushin( C1@% with 'etal () 0old for vehicle .earin( cushion

The respondents filed a 'otion to 2uash the search warrants on the followin( (roundsA 2. he !opyrigh" regis"ra"ions #ere issued in $iola"ion of "he %n"elle!"ual &roper"y Code on "he ground "ha"' a( b( "he sub)e!" ma""er of "he regis"ra"ions are no" ar"is"i! or li"erary* "he sub)e!" ma""er of "he regis"ra"ions are spare par"s of au"omobiles meaning + "here ,sic( are original par"s "ha" "hey are designed "o repla!e. -en!e. "hey are no" original.[@]

The respondents averred that the wor4s covered .* the certificates issued .* the #ational 7i.rar* are not artistic in natureB the* are considered auto'otive spare parts and pertain to technolo(* The* aver that the 'odels are not ori(inal, and as such are the proper su.Dect of a patent, not cop*ri(ht
[1%]

;n opposin( the 'otion, the petitioner averred that the court which issued the search warrants was not the proper foru' in which to articulate the issue of the validit* of the cop*ri(hts issued to hi' Citin( the rulin( of the Court in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals,[11] the petitioner stated that a search warrant is 'erel* a Dudicial process desi(ned .* the Rules of Court in anticipation of a cri'inal case 5ntil his cop*ri(ht was nullified in a proper proceedin(, he enDo*s ri(hts of a re(istered owner<holder thereof /n )anuar* +, 2%%2, the trial court issued an /rder[12] (rantin( the 'otion, and 2uashed the search warrant on its findin( that there was no pro.a.le cause for its issuance The court ruled that the wor4 covered .* the certificates issued to the petitioner pertained to solutions to technical pro.le's, not literar* and artistic as provided in Article 1$2 of the ;ntellectual "ropert* Code Gis 'otion for reconsideration of the order havin( .een denied .* the trial courtHs /rder of -e.ruar* 1&, 2%%2, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, contendin( that the RTC had no Durisdiction to delve into and resolve the validit* of the cop*ri(ht certificates issued to hi' .* the #ational 7i.rar* Ge insisted that his wor4s are covered .* !ections 1$2 1 and 1$2 2 of the ;ntellectual "ropert* Code The petitioner averred that the cop*ri(ht certificates are prima facie evidence of its validit*, citin( the rulin( of the 5nited !tates Court of Appeals in Wildlife Express Corporation v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc [1+] The petitioner asserted that the respondents failed to adduce evidence to support their 'otion to 2uash the search warrants The petitioner noted that respondent 3illia' !alinas, )r was not .ein( honest, as he was a.le to secure a si'ilar cop*ri(ht re(istration of a si'ilar product fro' the #ational 7i.rar* on )anuar* 1&, 2%%2 /n !epte'.er 2E, 2%%+, the CA rendered Dud('ent dis'issin( the petition on its findin( that the RTC did not co''it an* (rave a.use of its discretion in issuin( the assailed order, to witA %" is se""led "ha" preliminarily. "here mus" be a finding "ha" a spe!ifi! offense mus" ha$e been !ommi""ed "o )us"ify "he issuan!e of a sear!h #arran". %n a number of !ases de!ided by "he Supreme Cour". "he same is e/pli!i"ly pro$ided. "hus'

0 he probable !ause mus" be in !onne!"ion #i"h one spe!ifi! offense. and "he )udge mus". before issuing "he #arran". personally e/amine in "he form of sear!hing 1ues"ions and ans#ers. in #ri"ing and under oa"h. "he !omplainan" and any #i"ness he may produ!e. on fa!"s personally 2no#n "o "hem and a""a!h "o "he re!ord "heir s#orn s"a"emen"s "oge"her #i"h any affida$i" submi""ed. 0%n "he de"ermina"ion of probable !ause. "he !our" mus" ne!essarily resol$e #he"her or no" an offense e/is"s "o )us"ify "he issuan!e or 1uashal of "he sear!h #arran".3 %n "he ins"an" !ase. "he pe"i"ioner is praying for "he reins"a"emen" of "he sear!h #arran"s issued. bu" subse1uen"ly 1uashed. for "he offense of Violation of Class Designation of Copyrightable Works under Section 177.1 in relation to Section 177.3 of Republic Act !"3. #hen "he ob)e!"s sub)e!" of "he same. are pa"en"ly no" !opyrigh"able. %" is #or"hy "o s"a"e "ha" "he #or2s pro"e!"ed under "he La# on Copyrigh" are' li"erary or ar"is"i! #or2s ,Se!. 142( and deri$a"i$e #or2s ,Se!. 145(. he Leaf Spring 6ye Bushing and 7ehi!le Bearing Cushion fall on nei"her !lassifi!a"ion. 8!!ordingly. if. in "he firs" pla!e. "he i"em sub)e!" of "he pe"i"ion is no" en"i"led "o be pro"e!"ed by "he la# on !opyrigh". ho# !an "here be any $iola"ion9 [1&] The petitionerHs 'otion for reconsideration of the said decision suffered the sa'e fate The petitioner forthwith filed the present petition for review on certiorari, contendin( that the revocation of his cop*ri(ht certificates should .e raised in a direct action and not in a search warrant proceedin( The petitioner posits that even assu'in( ex argumenti that the trial court 'a* resolve the validit* of his cop*ri(ht in a proceedin( to 2uash a search warrant for alle(edl* infrin(in( ite's, the RTC co''itted a (rave a.use of its discretion when it declared that his wor4s are not cop*ri(hta.le in the first place Ge clai's that R A #o ?2@+, otherwise 4nown as the ;ntellectual "ropert* Code of the "hilippines, which too4 effect on )anuar* 1, 1@@?, provides in no uncertain ter's that cop*ri(ht protection auto'aticall* attaches to a wor4 .* the sole fact of its creation, irrespective of its 'ode or for' of eIpression, as well as of its content, 2ualit* or purpose [1=] The law (ives a non-inclusive definition of 6wor49 as referrin( to ori(inal intellectual creations in the literar* and artistic do'ain protected fro' the 'o'ent of their creationB and includes ori(inal orna'ental desi(ns or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not re(istra.le as an industrial desi(n and other wor4s of applied art under !ection 1$2 1(h) of R A #o ?2@+ As such, the petitioner insists, notwithstandin( the classification of the wor4s as either literar* and<or artistic, the said law, li4ewise, enco'passes

wor4s which 'a* have a .earin( on the utilit* aspect to which the petitionerHs utilit* desi(ns were classified 0oreover, accordin( to the petitioner, what the Cop*ri(ht 7aw protects is the authorHs intellectual creation, re(ardless of whether it is one with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale The petitioner also 'aintains that the law does not provide that the intended use or use in industr* of an article eli(i.le for patent .ars or invalidates its re(istration under the 7aw on Cop*ri(ht The test of protection for the aesthetic is not .eaut* and utilit*, .ut art for the cop*ri(ht and invention of ori(inal and orna'ental desi(n for desi(n patents [1E] ;n li4e 'anner, the fact that his utilit* desi(ns or 'odels for articles of 'anufacture have .een eIpressed in the field of auto'otive parts, or .ased on so'ethin( alread* in the pu.lic do'ain does not auto'aticall* re'ove the' fro' the protection of the 7aw on Cop*ri(ht [1$] The petitioner faults the CA for i(norin( !ection 21? of R A #o ?2@+ which (ives the sa'e presu'ption to an affidavit eIecuted .* an author who clai's cop*ri(ht ownership of his wor4 The petitioner adds that a findin( of pro.a.le cause to Dustif* the issuance of a search warrant 'eans 'erel* a reasona.le suspicion of the co''ission of the offense ;t is not e2uivalent to a.solute certaint* or a findin( of actual and positive cause [1?] Ge assists that the deter'ination of pro.a.le cause does not concern the issue of whether or not the alle(ed wor4 is cop*ri(hta.le Ge 'aintains that to Dustif* a findin( of pro.a.le cause in the issuance of a search warrant, it is enou(h that there eIists a reasona.le suspicion of the co''ission of the offense The petitioner contends that he has in his favor the .enefit of the presu'ption that his cop*ri(ht is validB hence, the .urden of overturnin( this presu'ption is on the alle(ed infrin(ers, the respondents herein 1ut this .urden cannot .e carried in a hearin( on a proceedin( to 2uash the search warrants, as the issue therein is whether there was pro.a.le cause for the issuance of the search warrant The petitioner concludes that the issue of pro.a.le cause should .e resolved without invalidatin( his cop*ri(ht ;n their co''ent on the petition, the respondents aver that the wor4 of the petitioner is essentiall* a technical solution to the pro.le' of wear and tear in auto'o.iles, the su.stitution of 'aterials, i.e., fro' ru..er to plastic 'atter of pol*vin*l chloride, an oil resistant soft teIture plastic 'aterial stron( enou(h to endure pressure .rou(ht a.out .* the vi.ration of the counter .earin( and thus .rin(s .ushin(s !uch wor4, the respondents assert, is the su.Dect of cop*ri(ht under !ection 1$2 1 of R A #o ?2@+ The respondents posit that a

technical solution in an* field of hu'an activit* which is novel 'a* .e the su.Dect of a patent, and not of a cop*ri(ht The* insist that the certificates issued .* the #ational 7i.rar* are onl* certifications that, at a point in ti'e, a certain wor4 was deposited in the said office -urther'ore, the re(istration of cop*ri(hts does not provide for auto'atic protection Citin( !ection 21? 2(.) of R A #o ?2@+, the respondents aver that no cop*ri(ht is said to eIist if a part* cate(oricall* 2uestions its eIistence and le(alit* 0oreover, under !ection 2, Rule $ of the ;'ple'entin( Rules of R A #o ?2@+, the re(istration and deposit of wor4 is not conclusive as to cop*ri(ht outla* or the ti'e of cop*ri(ht or the ri(ht of the cop*ri(ht owner The respondents 'aintain that a cop*ri(ht eIists onl* when the wor4 is covered .* the protection of R A #o ?2@+ The petition has no 'erit The RTC had Durisdiction to delve into and resolve the issue whether the petitionerHs utilit* 'odels are cop*ri(hta.le and, if so, whether he is the owner of a cop*ri(ht over the said 'odels ;t .ears stressin( that upon the filin( of the application for search warrant, the RTC was dut*-.ound to deter'ine whether pro.a.le cause eIisted, in accordance with !ection &, Rule 12E of the Rules of Cri'inal "rocedureA S6C. :. Re#uisite for issuing search $arrant. + 8 sear!h #arran" shall no" issue bu" upon probable !ause in !onne!"ion #i"h one spe!ifi! offense "o be de"ermined personally by "he )udge af"er e/amina"ion under oa"h or affirma"ion of "he !omplainan" and "he #i"nesses he may produ!e. and. par"i!ularly. des!ribing "he pla!e "o be sear!hed and "he "hings "o be sei;ed. ;n Solid Triangle Sales Corporation v. The Sheriff of RTC C , 1r @+,[1@] the Court held that in the deter'ination of pro.a.le cause, the court 'ust necessaril* resolve whether or not an offense eIists to Dustif* the issuance of a search warrant or the 2uashal of one alread* issued .* the court ;ndeed, pro.a.le cause is dee'ed to eIist onl* where facts and circu'stances eIist which could lead a reasona.l* cautious and prudent 'an to .elieve that an offense has .een co''itted or is .ein( co''itted 1esides, in !ection +, Rule 12E of the Rules of Cri'inal "rocedure, a search warrant 'a* .e issued for the search and sei>ure of personal propert* (a) su.Dect of the offenseB (.) stolen or e'.e>>led and other proceeds or fruits of the offenseB or (c) used or intended to .e used as the 'eans of co''ittin( an offense The RTC is 'andated under the Constitution and Rules of Cri'inal "rocedure to deter'ine pro.a.le cause The court cannot a.dicate its constitutional o.li(ation .* refusin( to deter'ine whether an offense has .een

co''itted [2%] The a.sence of pro.a.le cause will cause the outri(ht nullification of the search warrant [21] -or the RTC to deter'ine whether the cri'e for infrin(e'ent under R A #o ?2@+ as alle(ed in an application is co''itted, the petitioner-applicant was .urdened to prove that (a) respondents )essie Chin( and )oseph :u were the owners of cop*ri(hted 'aterialB and (.) the cop*ri(hted 'aterial was .ein( copied and distri.uted .* the respondents Thus, the ownership of a valid cop*ri(ht is essential [22] /wnership of cop*ri(hted 'aterial is shown .* proof of ori(inalit* and cop*ri(hta.ilit* 1* ori(inalit* is 'eant that the 'aterial was not copied, and evidences at least 'ini'al creativit*B that it was independentl* created .* the author and that it possesses at least sa'e 'ini'al de(ree of creativit* [2+] Cop*in( is shown .* proof of access to cop*ri(hted 'aterial and su.stantial si'ilarit* .etween the two wor4s [2&] The applicant 'ust thus de'onstrate the eIistence and the validit* of his cop*ri(ht .ecause in the a.sence of cop*ri(ht protection, even ori(inal creation 'a* .e freel* copied [2=] 1* re2uestin( the #1; to investi(ate and, if feasi.le, file an application for a search warrant for infrin(e'ent under R A #o ?2@+ a(ainst the respondents, the petitioner there.* authori>ed the RTC (in resolvin( the application), to delve into and deter'ine the validit* of the cop*ri(ht which he clai'ed he had over the utilit* 'odels The petitioner cannot see4 relief fro' the RTC .ased on his clai' that he was the cop*ri(ht owner over the utilit* 'odels and, at the sa'e ti'e, repudiate the courtHs Durisdiction to ascertain the validit* of his clai' without runnin( afoul to the doctrine of estoppel To dischar(e his .urden, the applicant 'a* present the certificate of re(istration coverin( the wor4 or, in its a.sence, other evidence [2E] A cop*ri(ht certificate provides prima facie evidence of ori(inalit* which is one ele'ent of cop*ri(ht validit* ;t constitutes prima facie evidence of .oth validit* and ownership[2$] and the validit* of the facts stated in the certificate [2?] The presu'ption of validit* to a certificate of cop*ri(ht re(istration 'erel* orders the .urden of proof The applicant should not ordinaril* .e forced, in the first instance, to prove all the 'ultiple facts that underline the validit* of the cop*ri(ht unless the respondent, effectivel* challen(in( the', shifts the .urden of doin( so to the applicant [2@] ;ndeed, !ection 21? 2 of R A #o ?2@+ providesA 218.2. %n an a!"ion under "his Chap"er'

,a( Copyrigh" shall be presumed "o subsis" in "he #or2 or o"her sub)e!" ma""er "o #hi!h "he a!"ion rela"es if "he defendan" does no" pu" in issue "he 1ues"ion #he"her !opyrigh" subsis"s in "he #or2 or o"her sub)e!" ma""er* and ,b( <here "he subsis"en!e of "he !opyrigh" is es"ablished. "he plain"iff shall be presumed "o be "he o#ner of "he !opyrigh" if he !laims "o be "he o#ner of "he !opyrigh" and "he defendan" does no" pu" in issue "he 1ues"ion of his o#nership. A certificate of re(istration creates no re.utta.le presu'ption of cop*ri(ht validit* where other evidence in the record casts dou.t on the 2uestion ;n such a case, validit* will not .e presu'ed [+%] To dischar(e his .urden of pro.a.le cause for the issuance of a search warrant for violation of R A #o ?2@+, the petitioner-applicant su.'itted to the RTC Certificate of Cop*ri(ht Re(istration #os 2%%1-1@$ and 2%%1-2%& dated !epte'.er +, 2%%1 and !epte'.er &, 2%%1, respectivel*, issued .* the #ational 7i.rar* coverin( wor4 identified as 7eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( for Auto'o.ile and Cehicle 1earin( Cushion .oth classified under !ection 1$2 1(h) of R A #o ?2@+, to witA S6C. 142. %iterary and Artistic Works. + 142.1. Li"erary and ar"is"i! #or2s. hereinaf"er referred "o as 0#or2s.3 are original in"elle!"ual !rea"ions in "he li"erary and ar"is"i! domain pro"e!"ed from "he momen" of "heir !rea"ion and shall in!lude in par"i!ular' ... ,h( =riginal ornamen"al designs or models for ar"i!les of manufa!"ure. #he"her or no" regis"rable as an indus"rial design. and o"her #or2s of applied ar". Related to the provision is !ection 1$1 1%, which provides that a 6wor4 of applied art9 is an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article, whether 'ade .* hand or produced on an industrial scale 1ut, as (leaned fro' the specifications appended to the application for a cop*ri(ht certificate filed .* the petitioner, the said 7eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( for Auto'o.ile is 'erel* a utilit* 'odel descri.ed as co'prisin( a (enerall* c*lindrical .od* havin( a co-aIial .ore that is centrall* located and provided with a perpendicular flan(e on one of its ends and a c*lindrical 'etal Dac4et surroundin( the peripheral walls of said .od*, with the .ushin( 'ade of plastic that is either pol*vin*l chloride or pol*prop*lene [+1] 7i4ewise, the Cehicle 1earin( Cushion is illustrated as a .earin( cushion co'prisin( a (enerall* se'i-circular .od* havin( a central hole to secure a conventional .earin( and

a pluralit* of rid(es provided therefore, with said cushion .earin( .ein( 'ade of the sa'e plastic 'aterials [+2] "lainl*, these are not literar* or artistic wor4s The* are not intellectual creations in the literar* and artistic do'ain, or wor4s of applied art The* are certainl* not orna'ental desi(ns or one havin( decorative 2ualit* or value ;t .ears stressin( that the focus of cop*ri(ht is the usefulness of the artistic desi(n, and not its 'ar4eta.ilit* The central in2uir* is whether the article is a wor4 of art [++] 3or4s for applied art include all ori(inal pictorials, (raphics, and sculptural wor4s that are intended to .e or have .een e'.odied in useful article re(ardless of factors such as 'ass production, co''ercial eIploitation, and the potential availa.ilit* of desi(n patent protection [+&] As (leaned fro' the description of the 'odels and their o.Dectives, these articles are useful articles which are defined as one havin( an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not 'erel* to portra* the appearance of the article or to conve* infor'ation ;ndeed, while wor4s of applied art, ori(inal intellectual, literar* and artistic wor4s are cop*ri(hta.le, useful articles and wor4s of industrial desi(n are not [+=] A useful article 'a* .e cop*ri(hta.le onl* if and onl* to the eItent that such desi(n incorporates pictorial, (raphic, or sculptural features that can .e identified separatel* fro', and are capa.le of eIistin( independentl* of the utilitarian aspects of the article 3e a(ree with the contention of the petitioner (citin( !ection 1$1 1% of R A #o ?2@+), that the authorHs intellectual creation, re(ardless of whether it is a creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale, is protected .* cop*ri(ht law Gowever, the law refers to a 6wor4 of applied art which is an artistic creation 9 ;t .ears stressin( that there is no cop*ri(ht protection for wor4s of applied art or industrial desi(n which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot .e identified separatel* fro' the utilitarian aspects of the article [+E] -unctional co'ponents of useful articles, no 'atter how artisticall* desi(ned, have (enerall* .een denied cop*ri(ht protection unless the* are separa.le fro' the useful article [+$] ;n this case, the petitionerHs 'odels are not wor4s of applied art, nor artistic wor4s The* are utilit* 'odels, useful articles, al.eit with no artistic desi(n or value Thus, the petitioner descri.ed the utilit* 'odel as followsA L68> S&?%@A 6B6 BCS-%@A >=? 8C =M=B%L6 Dno#n bushings inser"ed "o leafEspring eye "o hold leafEsprings of au"omobile are made of hard rubber. hese rubber bushings af"er a "ime. upon sub)e!"ing "hem "o so

mu!h or in"ermi""en" pressure #ould e$en"ually #ore , sic( ou" "ha" #ould !ause "he #obbling of "he leaf spring. he primary ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model. "herefore. is "o pro$ide a leafEspring eye bushing for au"omobile "ha" is made up of plas"i!. 8no"her ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a leafEspring eye bushing for au"omobiles made of poly$inyl !hloride. an oil resis"an" sof" "e/"ure plas"i! or polypropylene. a hard plas"i!. ye" bo"h !auses !ushion "o "he leaf spring. ye" s"rong enough "o endure pressure brough" abou" by "he up and do#n mo$emen" of said leaf spring. Be". an ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a leafEspring eye bushing for au"omobiles "ha" has a mu!h longer life span "han "he rubber bushings. S"ill an ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a leafEspring eye bushing for au"omobiles "ha" has a $ery simple !ons"ru!"ion and !an be made using simple and ordinary molding e1uipmen". 8 fur"her ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a leafEspring eye bushing for au"omobile "ha" is supplied #i"h a me"al )a!2e" "o reinfor!e "he plas"i! eye bushing #hen in engaged #i"h "he s"eel ma"erial of "he leaf spring. hese and o"her ob)e!"s and ad$an"ages #ill !ome "o $ie# and be unders"ood upon a reading of "he de"ailed des!rip"ion #hen "a2en in !on)un!"ion #i"h "he a!!ompanying dra#ings. >igure 1 is an e/ploded perspe!"i$e of a leafEspring eye bushing a!!ording "o "he presen" u"ili"y model* >igure 2 is a se!"ional $ie# "a2en along line 2E2 of >ig. 1* >igure 5 is a longi"udinal se!"ional $ie# of ano"her embodimen" of "his u"ili"y model* >igure : is a perspe!"i$e $ie# of a "hird embodimen"* and >igure F is a se!"ional $ie# "hereof. ?eferring no# "o "he se$eral $ie#s of "he dra#ings #herein li2e referen!e numerals designa"ed same par"s "hroughou". "here is sho#n a u"ili"y model for a leafEspring eye bushing for au"omobile generally designa"ed as referen!e numeral 10.

Said leafEspring eye bushing 10 !omprises a generally !ylindri!al body 11 ha$ing a !oEa/ial bore 12 !en"rally pro$ided "hereof. 8s sho#n in >igs. 1 and 2. said leafEspring eye bushing 10 is pro$ided #i"h a perpendi!ular flange 15 on one of i"s ends and a !ylindri!al me"al )a!2e" 1: surrounding "he peripheral #alls 1F of said body 11. <hen said leafEspring bushing 10 is ins"alled. "he me"al )a!2e" 1: a!"s #i"h "he leafEspring eye ,no" sho#n(. #hi!h is also made of s"eel or !as" s"eel. %n effe!". "he bushing 10 #ill no" be dire!"ly in !on"a!" #i"h s"eel. bu" ra"her "he me"al )a!2e". ma2ing "he life of "he bushing 10 longer "han "hose #i"hou" "he me"al )a!2e". %n >igure 2. "he bushing 10 as sho#n is made of plas"i!. preferably poly$inyl !hloride. an oil resis"an" sof" "e/"ure plas"i! or a hard polypropylene plas"i!. bo"h are !apable "o endure "he pressure applied "here"o. and. in effe!". #ould leng"hen "he life and repla!emen" "herefor. >igure 5. on "he o"her hand. sho#s "he #alls 1G of "he !oEa/ial bore 12 of said bushing 10 is inser"ably pro$ided #i"h a s"eel "ube 14 "o reinfor!e "he inner por"ion "hereof. his s"eel "ube 14 a!!ommoda"es or engages #i"h "he leafEspring bol" ,no" sho#n( !onne!"ing "he leaf spring and "he au"omobileHs !hassis. >igures : and F sho# ano"her embodimen" #herein "he leaf eye bushing 10 is elonga"ed and !ylindri!al as "o i"s !ons"ru!"ion. Said ano"her embodimen" is also made of polypropylene or poly$inyl !hloride plas"i! ma"erial. he s"eel "ube 14 and me"al )a!2e" 1: may also be applied "o "his embodimen" as an op"ion "hereof. [+?] 76-%CL6 B68?%@A CCS-%=@ Dno#n bearing !ushions inser"ed "o bearing housings for $ehi!le propeller shaf"s are made of hard rubber. hese rubber bushings af"er a "ime. upon sub)e!"ing "hem "o so mu!h or in"ermi""en" pressure #ould e$en"ually be #orn ou" "ha" #ould !ause "he #obbling of "he !en"er bearing. he primary ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model "herefore is "o pro$ide a $ehi!leEbearing !ushion "ha" is made up of plas"i!. 8no"her ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a $ehi!le bearing !ushion made of poly$inyl !hloride. an oil resis"an" sof" "e/"ure plas"i! ma"erial #hi!h !auses !ushion "o "he propellerHs !en"er bearing. ye" s"rong enough "o endure pressure brough" abou" by "he $ibra"ion of "he !en"er bearing.

Be". an ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a $ehi!leEbearing !ushion "ha" has a mu!h longer life span "han rubber bushings. S"ill an ob)e!" of "his u"ili"y model is "o pro$ide a $ehi!le bearing !ushion "ha" has a $ery simple !ons"ru!"ion and !an be made using simple and ordinary molding e1uipmen". hese and o"her ob)e!"s and ad$an"ages #ill !ome "o $ie# and be unders"ood upon a reading of "he de"ailed des!rip"ion #hen "a2en in !on)un!"ion #i"h "he a!!ompanying dra#ings. >igure 1 is a perspe!"i$e $ie# of "he presen" u"ili"y model for a $ehi!leEbearing !ushion* and >igure 2 is a se!"ional $ie# "hereof. ?eferring no# "o "he se$eral $ie#s of "he dra#ing. #herein li2e referen!e numeral designa"e same par"s "hroughou". "here is sho#n a u"ili"y model for a $ehi!leEbearing !ushion generally designa"ed as referen!e numeral 10. Said bearing !ushion 10 !omprises of a generally semiE!ir!ular body 11. ha$ing !en"ral hole 12 "o house a !on$en"ional bearing ,no" sho#n(. 8s sho#n in >igure 1. said body 11 is pro$ided #i"h a plurali"y of ridges 15 #hi!h ser$es reinfor!ing means "hereof. he sub)e!" bearing !ushion 10 is made of poly$inyl !hloride. a sof" "e/"ure oil and !hemi!al resis"an" plas"i! ma"erial #hi!h is s"rong. durable and !apable of enduring se$ere pressure from "he !en"er bearing brough" abou" by "he ro"a"ing mo$emen" of "he propeller shaf" of "he $ehi!le.[+@] A utilit* 'odel is a technical solution to a pro.le' in an* field of hu'an activit* which is new and industriall* applica.le ;t 'a* .e, or 'a* relate to, a product, or process, or an i'prove'ent of an* of the aforesaid [&%] 8ssentiall*, a utilit* 'odel refers to an invention in the 'echanical field This is the reason wh* its o.Dect is so'eti'es descri.ed as a device or useful o.Dect [&1] A utilit* 'odel varies fro' an invention, for which a patent for invention is, li4ewise, availa.le, on at least three aspectsA first, the re2uisite of 6inventive step9[&2] in a patent for invention is not re2uiredB second, the 'aIi'u' ter' of protection is onl* seven *ears[&+] co'pared to a patent which is twent* *ears, [&&] .oth rec4oned fro' the date of the applicationB and third, the provisions on utilit* 'odel dispense with its su.stantive eIa'ination [&=] and prefer for a less co'plicated s*ste'

1ein( plain auto'otive spare parts that 'ust confor' to the ori(inal structural desi(n of the co'ponents the* see4 to replace, the 7eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( and Cehicle 1earin( Cushion are not orna'ental The* lac4 the decorative 2ualit* or value that 'ust characteri>e authentic wor4s of applied art The* are not even artistic creations with incidental utilitarian functions or wor4s incorporated in a useful article ;n actualit*, the personal properties descri.ed in the search warrants are 'echanical wor4s, the principal function of which is utilit* sans an* aesthetic e'.ellish'ent #either are we to re(ard the 7eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( and Cehicle 1earin( Cushion as included in the catch-all phrase 6other literar*, scholarl*, scientific and artistic wor4s9 in !ection 1$2 1(a) of R A #o ?2@+ Appl*in( the principle of e!usdem generis which states that 6where a statute descri.es thin(s of a particular class or 4ind acco'panied .* words of a (eneric character, the (eneric word will usuall* .e li'ited to thin(s of a si'ilar nature with those particularl* enu'erated, unless there .e so'ethin( in the conteIt of the state which would repel such inference,9[&E] the 7eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( and Cehicle 1earin( Cushion are not cop*ri(hta.le, .ein( not of the sa'e 4ind and nature as the wor4s enu'erated in !ection 1$2 of R A #o ?2@+ #o cop*ri(ht (ranted .* law can .e said to arise in favor of the petitioner despite the issuance of the certificates of cop*ri(ht re(istration and the deposit of the 7eaf !prin( 8*e 1ushin( and Cehicle 1earin( Cushion ;ndeed, in "oa#uin, "r. v. $rilon[&$] and %earl & $ean '%hil.(, Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated,[&?] the Court ruled thatA Copyrigh". in "he s"ri!" sense of "he "erm. is purely a s"a"u"ory righ". %" is a ne# or independen" righ" gran"ed by "he s"a"u"e. and no" simply a preEe/is"ing righ" regula"ed by i". Being a s"a"u"ory gran". "he righ"s are only su!h as "he s"a"u"e !onfers. and may be ob"ained and en)oyed only #i"h respe!" "o "he sub)e!"s and by "he persons. and on "erms and !ondi"ions spe!ified in "he s"a"u"e. 8!!ordingly. i" !an !o$er only "he #or2s falling #i"hin "he s"a"u"ory enumera"ion or des!rip"ion. That the wor4s of the petitioner 'a* .e the proper su.Dect of a patent does not entitle hi' to the issuance of a search warrant for violation of cop*ri(ht laws ;n )ho v. Court of Appeals[&@] and %earl & $ean '%hil.(, Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated,[=%] the Court ruled that 6these cop*ri(ht and patent ri(hts are co'pletel* distinct and separate fro' one another, and the protection afforded .* one cannot .e used interchan(ea.l* to cover ite's or wor4s that exclusivel* pertain to the others 9 The Court eIpounded further, thusA

rademar2. !opyrigh" and pa"en"s are differen" in"elle!"ual proper"y righ"s "ha" !anno" be in"er!hanged #i"h one ano"her. 8 "rademar2 is any $isible sign !apable of dis"inguishing "he goods ,"rademar2( or ser$i!es ,ser$i!e mar2( of an en"erprise and shall in!lude a s"amped or mar2ed !on"ainer of goods. %n rela"ion "here"o. a "rade name means "he name or designa"ion iden"ifying or dis"inguishing an en"erprise. Mean#hile. "he s!ope of a !opyrigh" is !onfined "o li"erary and ar"is"i! #or2s #hi!h are original in"elle!"ual !rea"ions in "he li"erary and ar"is"i! domain pro"e!"ed from "he momen" of "heir !rea"ion. &a"en"able in$en"ions. on "he o"her hand. refer "o any "e!hni!al solu"ion of a problem in any field of human a!"i$i"y #hi!h is ne#. in$ol$es an in$en"i$e s"ep and is indus"rially appli!able. The petitioner cannot find solace in the rulin( of the 5nited !tates !upre'e Court in Ma+er v. Stein[=1] to .uttress his petition ;n that case, the artifacts involved in that case were statuettes of dancin( 'ale and fe'ale fi(ures 'ade of se'i-vitreous china The controvers* therein centered on the fact that althou(h cop*ri(hted as 6wor4s of art,9 the statuettes were intended for use and used as .ases for ta.le la'ps, with electric wirin(, soc4ets and la'pshades attached The issue raised was whether the statuettes were cop*ri(ht protected in the 5nited !tates, considerin( that the cop*ri(ht applicant intended pri'aril* to use the' as la'p .ases to .e 'ade and sold in 2uantit*, and carried such intentions into effect At that ti'e, the Cop*ri(ht /ffice interpreted the 1@%@ Cop*ri(ht Act to cover wor4s of artistic crafts'anship insofar as their for', .ut not the utilitarian aspects, were concerned After reviewin( the histor* and intent of the 5! Con(ress on its cop*ri(ht le(islation and the interpretation of the cop*ri(ht office, the 5! !upre'e Court declared that the statuettes were held cop*ri(hta.le wor4s of art or 'odels or desi(ns for wor4s of art The Gi(h Court ruled thatA 0<or2s of ar" ,Class A( + ,a( + &n 'eneral. his !lass in!ludes #or2s of ar"is"i! !raf"smanship. in so far as "heir form bu" no" "heir me!hani!al or u"ili"arian aspe!"s are !on!erned. su!h as ar"is"i! )e#elry. enamels. glass#are. and "apes"ries. as #ell as all #or2s belonging "o "he fine ar"s. su!h as pain"ings. dra#ings and s!ulp"ure. I3 So #e ha$e a !on"emporaneous and longE!on"inued !ons"ru!"ion of "he s"a"u"es by "he agen!y !harged "o adminis"er "hem "ha" #ould allo# "he regis"ra"ion of su!h a s"a"ue""e as is in 1ues"ion here.[=2] The Gi(h Court went on to state that 6[t]he dichoto'* of protection for the aesthetic is not .eaut* and utilit* .ut art for the cop*ri(ht and the invention of ori(inal and orna'ental desi(n for desi(n patents 9 !i(nificantl*, the cop*ri(ht office pro'ul(ated a rule to i'ple'ent 0a>er to witA

I J%Kf 0"he sole in"rinsi! fun!"ion of an ar"i!le is i"s u"ili"y. "he fa!" "ha" "he #or2 is uni1ue and a""ra!"i$ely shaped #ill no" 1ualify i" as a #or2 of ar".3 ;n this case, the .ushin( and cushion are not wor4s of art The* are, as the petitioner hi'self ad'itted, utilit* 'odels which 'a* .e the su.Dect of a patent IN LIGH! OF ALL !HE FOREGOING, the instant petition is here.* D8#;8D for lac4 of 'erit The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G R !" #o $%&11 are A--;R08D !earch 3arrant #os %1-2&%1 and %1-2&%2 issued on /cto.er 1=, 2%%1 are A##5778D A#D !8T A!;D8 Costs a(ainst the petitioner SO OR)ERE). %uno, ""., concur. 'Chairman(, Austria,Martine+, Tinga, and Chico,-a+ario,

[G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999]

FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and J !RO"UC#IONS, INC., petitioners, vs. FRAN$%IN "RI%ON GA RI&% 'OSA, (I%%IA) &S!OSO, F&%I!& )&"INA, JR., and CAS&* FRANCISCO, respondents. "&CISION
)&N"O'A, J.+

his is a pe"i"ion for certiorari. &e"i"ioners see2 "o annul "he resolu"ion of "he Depar"men" of Lus"i!e. da"ed 8ugus" 12. 1992. in Criminal Case @o. ME92E248F:. en"i"led 0Aabriel Nosa. e" al. $. Ci"y &rose!u"or of Mue;on Ci"y and >ran!is!o Loa1uin. Lr..3 and i"s resolu"ion. da"ed De!ember 5. 1992. denying pe"i"ioner Loa1uinHs mo"ion for re!onsidera"ion. &e"i"ioner BL &rodu!"ions. %n!. ,BL&%( is "he holderOgran"ee of Cer"ifi!a"e of Copyrigh" @o. M922. da"ed Lanuary 28. 1941. of Rhoda and (e. a da"ing game sho# aired from 1940 "o 1944. =n Lune 28. 1945. pe"i"ioner BL&% submi""ed "o "he @a"ional Library an addendum "o i"s !er"ifi!a"e of !opyrigh" spe!ifying "he sho#Hs forma" and s"yle of presen"a"ion. =n Luly 1:. 1991. #hile #a"!hing "ele$ision. pe"i"ioner >ran!is!o Loa1uin. Lr.. presiden" of BL&%. sa# on ?&@ Channel 9 an episode of &t)s a Date. #hi!h #as produ!ed by %PL &rodu!"ions. %n!. ,%PL(. =n Luly 18. 1991. he #ro"e a le""er "o pri$a"e responden" Aabriel M. Nosa. presiden" and general manager of %PL. informing Nosa "ha" BL&% had a !opyrigh" "o Rhoda and (e and demanding "ha" %PL dis!on"inue airing &t)s a Date. %n a le""er. da"ed Luly 19. 1991. pri$a"e responden" Nosa apologi;ed "o pe"i"ioner Loa1uin and re1ues"ed a mee"ing "o dis!uss a possible se""lemen". %PL. ho#e$er. !on"inued airing &t)s a Date. promp"ing pe"i"ioner Loa1uin "o send a se!ond le""er on Luly 2F. 1991 in #hi!h he rei"era"ed his demand and #arned "ha". if %PL did no" !omply. he #ould endorse "he ma""er "o his a""orneys for proper legal a!"ion. Mean#hile. pri$a"e responden" Nosa sough" "o regis"er %PLHs !opyrigh" "o "he firs" episode of &t)s a Date for #hi!h i" #as issued by "he @a"ional Library a !er"ifi!a"e of !opyrigh" on 8ugus" 1:. 1991. Cpon !omplain" of pe"i"ioners. an informa"ion for $iola"ion of &.D. @o. :9 #as filed agains" pri$a"e responden" Nosa "oge"her #i"h !er"ain offi!ers of ?&@ Channel 9. namely. <illiam 6sposo. >elipe Medina. and Casey >ran!is!o. in "he ?egional rial Cour" of Mue;on Ci"y #here i" #as do!2e"ed as Criminal Case @o. 92E248F: and assigned "o Bran!h 10: "hereof. -o#e$er. pri$a"e responden" Nosa sough" a re$ie# of "he resolu"ion of "he 8ssis"an" Ci"y &rose!u"or before "he Depar"men" of Lus"i!e. =n 8ugus" 12. 1992. responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e >ran2lin M. Drilon re$ersed "he 8ssis"an" Ci"y &rose!u"orHs findings and dire!"ed him "o mo$e for "he dismissal of "he !ase agains" pri$a"e responden"s. J1K

&e"i"ioner Loa1uin filed a mo"ion for re!onsidera"ion. bu" his mo"ion #as denied by responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e on De!ember 5. 1992. -en!e. "his pe"i"ion. &e"i"ioners !on"end "ha"'
1. he publi! responden" gra$ely abused his dis!re"ion amoun"ing "o la!2 of )urisdi!"ion #hen he in$o2ed nonEpresen"a"ion of "he mas"er "ape as being fa"al "o "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause "o pro$e infringemen". despi"e "he fa!" "ha" pri$a"e responden"s ne$er raised "he same as a !on"ro$er"ed issue. he publi! responden" gra$ely abused his dis!re"ion amoun"ing "o la!2 of )urisdi!"ion #hen he arroga"ed un"o himself "he de"ermina"ion of #ha" is !opyrigh"able E an issue #hi!h is e/!lusi$ely #i"hin "he )urisdi!"ion of "he regional "rial !our" "o assess in a proper pro!eeding.

2.

Bo"h publi! and pri$a"e responden"s main"ain "ha" pe"i"ioners failed "o es"ablish "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause due "o "heir failure "o presen" "he !opyrigh"ed mas"er $ideo"ape of Rhoda and (e. hey !on"end "ha" pe"i"ioner BL&%Hs !opyrigh" !o$ers only a spe!ifi! episode of Rhoda and (e and "ha" "he forma"s or !on!ep"s of da"ing game sho#s are no" !o$ered by !opyrigh" pro"e!"ion under &. D. @o. :9.
Non,A--./n01n2 o3 &rror

&e"i"ioners !laim "ha" "heir failure "o submi" "he !opyrigh"ed mas"er $ideo"ape of "he "ele$ision sho# Rhoda and (e #as no" raised in issue by pri$a"e responden"s during "he preliminary in$es"iga"ion and. "herefore. i" #as error for "he Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e "o re$erse "he in$es"iga"ing prose!u"orHs finding of probable !ause on "his ground. 8 preliminary in$es"iga"ion falls under "he au"hori"y of "he s"a"e prose!u"or #ho is gi$en by la# "he po#er "o dire!" and !on"rol !riminal a!"ions. J2K -e is. ho#e$er. sub)e!" "o "he !on"rol of "he Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e. hus. ?ule 112. Q: of "he ?e$ised ?ules of Criminal &ro!edure. pro$ides'

S6C. :. Duty of in*estigating fiscal. E %f "he in$es"iga"ing fis!al finds !ause "o hold "he responden" for "rial. he shall prepare "he resolu"ion and !orresponding informa"ion. -e shall !er"ify under oa"h "ha" he. or as sho#n by "he re!ord. an au"hori;ed offi!er. has personally e/amined "he !omplainan" and his #i"nesses. "ha" "here is reasonable ground "o belie$e "ha" a !rime has been !ommi""ed and "ha" "he a!!used is probably guil"y "hereof. "ha" "he a!!used #as informed of "he !omplain" and of "he e$iden!e submi""ed agains" him and "ha" he #as gi$en an oppor"uni"y "o submi" !on"ro$er"ing e$iden!e. ="her#ise. he shall re!ommend dismissal of "he !omplain". %n ei"her !ase. he shall for#ard "he re!ords of "he !ase "o "he pro$in!ial or !i"y fis!al or !hief s"a"e prose!u"or #i"hin fi$e ,F( days from his resolu"ion. he la""er shall "a2e appropria"e a!"ion "hereon #i"hin "en ,10( days from re!eip" "hereof. immedia"ely informing "he par"ies of said a!"ion.

@o !omplain" or informa"ion may be filed or dismissed by an in$es"iga"ing fis!al #i"hou" "he prior #ri""en au"hori"y or appro$al of "he pro$in!ial or !i"y fis!al or !hief s"a"e prose!u"or. <here "he in$es"iga"ing assis"an" fis!al re!ommends "he dismissal of "he !ase bu" his findings are re$ersed by "he pro$in!ial or !i"y fis!al or !hief s"a"e prose!u"or on "he ground "ha" a probable !ause e/is"s. "he la""er may. by himself. file "he !orresponding informa"ion agains" "he responden" or dire!" any o"her assis"an" fis!al or s"a"e prose!u"or "o do so. #i"hou" !ondu!"ing ano"her preliminary in$es"iga"ion. %f upon pe"i"ion by a proper par"y. "he Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e re$erses "he resolu"ion of "he pro$in!ial or !i"y fis!al or !hief s"a"e prose!u"or. he shall dire!" "he fis!al !on!erned "o file "he !orresponding informa"ion #i"hou" !ondu!"ing ano"her preliminary in$es"iga"ion or "o dismiss or mo$e for dismissal of "he !omplain" or informa"ion.
%n re$ie#ing resolu"ions of prose!u"ors. "he Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e is no" pre!luded from !onsidering errors. al"hough unassigned. for "he purpose of de"ermining #he"her "here is probable !ause for filing !ases in !our". -e mus" ma2e his o#n finding of probable !ause and is no" !onfined "o "he issues raised by "he par"ies during preliminary in$es"iga"ion. Moreo$er. his findings are no" sub)e!" "o re$ie# unless sho#n "o ha$e been made #i"h gra$e abuse.
O4.n.on o3 251 S16r12ary o3 Ju-2.61

&e"i"ioners !on"end. ho#e$er. "ha" "he de"ermina"ion of "he 1ues"ion #he"her "he forma" or me!hani!s of a sho# is en"i"led "o !opyrigh" pro"e!"ion is for "he !our". and no" "he Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e. "o ma2e. hey assail "he follo#ing por"ion of "he resolu"ion of "he responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e'

J Khe essen!e of !opyrigh" infringemen" is "he !opying. in #hole or in par". of !opyrigh"able ma"erials as defined and enumera"ed in Se!"ion 2 of &D. @o. :9. 8par" from "he manner in #hi!h i" is a!"ually e/pressed. ho#e$er. "he idea of a da"ing game sho# is. in "he opinion of "his =ffi!e. a nonE!opyrigh"able ma"erial. %deas. !on!ep"s. forma"s. or s!hemes in "heir abs"ra!" form !learly do no" fall #i"hin "he !lass of #or2s or ma"erials sus!ep"ible of !opyrigh" regis"ra"ion as pro$ided in &D. @o. :9.J5K ,6mphasis added.(
%" is indeed "rue "ha" "he 1ues"ion #he"her "he forma" or me!hani!s of pe"i"ionersH "ele$ision sho# is en"i"led "o !opyrigh" pro"e!"ion is a legal 1ues"ion for "he !our" "o ma2e. his does no". ho#e$er. pre!lude responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e from ma2ing a preliminary de"ermina"ion of

"his 1ues"ion in resol$ing #he"her "here is probable !ause for filing "he !ase in !our". %n doing so in "his !ase. he did no" !ommi" any gra$e error.
!r1-1n2a2.on o3 )a-21r #a41

&e"i"ioners !laim "ha" responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e gra$ely abused his dis!re"ion in ruling "ha" "he mas"er $ideo"ape should ha$e been presen"ed in order "o de"ermine #he"her "here #as probable !ause for !opyrigh" infringemen". hey !on"end th J:K "ha" !+ Century ,o- ,il. Corporation *. Court of Appeals. on #hi!h responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e relied in re$ersing "he resolu"ion of "he in$es"iga"ing prose!u"or. is inappli!able "o "he !ase a" bar be!ause in "he presen" !ase. "he par"ies presen"ed suffi!ien" e$iden!e #hi!h !learly es"ablish 0lin2ages be"#een "he !opyrigh"ed sho# RRhoda and (e H and "he infringing 7 sho# R&t)s a Date.H3JFK he !ase of 20"h Century ,o- ,il. Corporation in$ol$ed raids !ondu!"ed on $arious $ideo"ape ou"le"s allegedly selling or ren"ing ou" 0pira"ed3 $ideo"apes. he "rial !our" found "ha" "he affida$i"s of @B% agen"s. gi$en in suppor" of "he appli!a"ion for "he sear!h #arran". #ere insuffi!ien" #i"hou" "he mas"er "ape. 8!!ordingly. "he "rial !our" lif"ed "he sear!h #arran"s i" had pre$iously issued agains" "he defendan"s. =n pe"i"ion for re$ie#. "his Cour" sus"ained "he a!"ion of "he "rial !our" and ruled'JGK

he presen"a"ion of "he mas"er "apes of "he !opyrigh"ed films from #hi!h "he pira"ed films #ere allegedly !opied. #as ne!essary for "he $alidi"y of sear!h #arran"s agains" "hose #ho ha$e in "heir possession "he pira"ed films. he pe"i"ionerHs argumen" "o "he effe!" "ha" "he presen"a"ion of "he mas"er "apes a" "he "ime of appli!a"ion may no" be ne!essary as "hese #ould be merely e$iden"iary in na"ure and no" de"ermina"i$e of #he"her or no" a probable !ause e/is"s "o )us"ify "he issuan!e of "he sear!h #arran"s is no" meri"orious. he !our" !anno" presume "ha" dupli!a"e or !opied "apes #ere ne!essarily reprodu!ed from mas"er "apes "ha" i" o#ns. he appli!a"ion for sear!h #arran"s #as dire!"ed agains" $ideo "ape ou"le"s #hi!h allegedly #ere engaged in "he unau"hori;ed sale and ren"ing ou" of !opyrigh"ed films belonging "o "he pe"i"ioner pursuan" "o &.D. :9. he essen!e of a !opyrigh" infringemen" is "he similari"y or a" leas" subs"an"ial similari"y of "he purpor"ed pira"ed #or2s "o "he !opyrigh"ed #or2. -en!e. "he appli!an" mus" presen" "o "he !our" "he !opyrigh"ed films "o !ompare "hem #i"h "he pur!hased e$iden!e of "he $ideo "apes allegedly pira"ed "o de"ermine #he"her "he la""er is an unau"hori;ed reprodu!"ion of "he former. his lin2age of "he !opyrigh"ed films "o "he pira"ed films mus" be es"ablished "o sa"isfy "he re1uiremen"s of probable !ause. Mere allega"ions as "o "he e/is"en!e of "he !opyrigh"ed films !anno" ser$e as basis for "he issuan!e of a sear!h #arran".

his ruling #as 1ualified in "he la"er !ase of Colu.bia /ictures0 &nc. *. Court of Appeals J4K in #hi!h i" #as held'

%n fine. "he supposed pronuncia.ento in said !ase regarding "he ne!essi"y for "he presen"a"ion of "he mas"er "apes of "he !opyrigh"ed films for "he $alidi"y of sear!h #arran"s should a" mos" be unders"ood "o merely ser$e as a guidepos" in de"ermining "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause in !opyrigh" infringemen" !ases $here there is doubt as to the true ne-us bet$een the .aster tape and the pirated copies. 8n ob)e!"i$e and !areful reading of "he de!ision in said !ase !ould lead "o no o"her !on!lusion "han "ha" said dire!"i$e #as hardly in"ended "o be a s#eeping and infle/ible re1uiremen" in all or similar !opyrigh" infringemen" !ases. . . . J8K
%n "he !ase a" bar. during "he preliminary in$es"iga"ion. pe"i"ioners and pri$a"e responden"s presen"ed #ri""en des!rip"ions of "he forma"s of "heir respe!"i$e "ele$isions sho#s. on "he basis of #hi!h "he in$es"iga"ing prose!u"or ruled'

8s may JbeK gleaned from "he e$iden!e on re!ord. "he subs"an!e of "he "ele$ision produ!"ions !omplainan"Hs 0?-=D8 8@D M63 and NosaHs 0% HS 8 D8 63 is "ha" "#o ma"!hes are made be"#een a male and a female. bo"h single. and "he "#o !ouples are "rea"ed "o a nigh" or "#o of dining andOor dan!ing a" "he e/pense of "he sho#. he ma)or !on!ep"s of bo"h sho#s is "he same. 8ny differen!e appear mere $aria"ions of "he ma)or !on!ep"s. ha" "here is an infringemen" on "he !opyrigh" of "he sho# 0?-=D8 8@D M63 bo"h in !on"en" and in "he e/e!u"ion of "he $ideo presen"a"ion are es"ablished be!ause responden"Hs 0% HS 8 D8 63 is pra!"i!ally an e/a!" !opy of !omplainan"Hs 0?-=D8 8@D M63 be!ause of subs"an"ial similari"ies as follo#s. "o #i"' 0?-=D8 8@D M63 Se" % a. Cnmarried par"i!ipan" 0% HS 8 D8 63 Se" % a. same

of one gender ,sear!her( appears on one side of a di$ider. #hile "hree ,5( unmarried par"i!ipan"s of "he o"her gender are on "he o"her side of "he di$ider. his arrangemen" is done "o ensure "ha" "he sear!her does no" see "he sear!hees. b. Sear!her as2s a 1ues"ion "o be ans#ered by ea!h of "he sear!hees. he b. same

purpose is "o de"ermine #ho among "he sear!hees is "he mos" !ompa"ible #i"h "he sear!her. !. Sear!her spe!ula"es on "he ma"!h "o "he sear!hee. d. Sele!"ion is made by "he use of !ompu"e ,si!( me"hods. or by "he #ay 1ues"ions are ans#ered. or similar me"hods. Se" 2 Same as abo$e #i"h "he genders of "he sear!her and sear!hees in"er!hanged.J9K
&e"i"ioners asser" "ha" "he forma" of Rhoda and (e is a produ!" of ingenui"y and s2ill and is "hus en"i"led "o !opyrigh" pro"e!"ion. %" is "heir posi"ion "ha" "he presen"a"ion of a poin"EbyEpoin" !omparison of "he forma"s of "he "#o sho#s !learly demons"ra"es "he ne/us be"#een "he sho#s and hen!e es"ablishes "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause for !opyrigh" infringemen". Su!h being "he !ase. "hey did no" ha$e "o produ!e "he mas"er "ape. o begin #i"h. "he forma" of a sho# is no" !opyrigh"able. Se!"ion 2 of &.D. @o. :9. o"her#ise 2no#n as "he D6C?66 =@ %@ 6LL6C C8L &?=&6? B. enumera"es "he !lasses of #or2 en"i"led "o !opyrigh" pro"e!"ion. "o #i"'
J10K

!. same

d. Sele!"ion is based on "he ans#er of "he Sear!hees. Se" 2 same

Se!"ion 2. he righ"s gran"ed by "his De!ree shall. from "he momen" of !rea"ion. subsis" #i"h respe!" "o any of "he follo#ing !lasses of #or2s' ,8( Boo2s. in!luding !omposi"e and !y!lopedi! #or2s. manus!rip"s. dire!"ories. and ga;e""eers* ,B( &eriodi!als. in!luding pamphle"s and ne#spapers* ,C( Le!"ures. sermons. addresses. disser"a"ions prepared for oral deli$ery* ,D( Le""ers*

,6( Drama"i! or drama"i!oEmusi!al !omposi"ions* !horeographi! #or2s and en"er"ainmen"s in dumb sho#s. "he a!"ing form of #hi!h is fi/ed in #ri"ing or o"her#ise* ,>( Musi!al !omposi"ions. #i"h or #i"hou" #ords* ,A( <or2s of dra#ing. pain"ing. ar!hi"e!"ure. s!ulp"ure. engra$ing. li"hography. and o"her #or2s of ar"* models or designs for #or2s of ar"* ,-( ?eprodu!"ions of a #or2 of ar"* ,%( =riginal ornamen"al designs or models for ar"i!les of manufa!"ure. #he"her or no" pa"en"able. and o"her #or2s of applied ar"* ,L( Maps. plans. s2e"!hes. and !har"s* ,D( Dra#ings or plas"i! #or2s of a s!ien"ifi! or "e!hni!al !hara!"er* ,L( &ho"ographi! #or2s and #or2s produ!ed by a pro!ess analogous "o pho"ography* lan"ern slides* ,M( Cinema"ographi! #or2s and #or2s produ!ed by a pro!ess analogous "o !inema"ography or any pro!ess for ma2ing audioE$isual re!ordings* ,@( Compu"er programs* ,=( &rin"s. pi!"orial illus"ra"ions ad$er"ising !opies. labels. "ags. and bo/ #raps* ,&( Drama"i;a"ions. "ransla"ions. adap"a"ions. abridgemen"s. arrangemen"s and o"her al"era"ions of li"erary. musi!al or ar"is"i! #or2s or of #or2s of "he &hilippine go$ernmen" as herein defined. #hi!h shall be pro"e!"ed as pro$ided in Se!"ion 8 of "his De!ree. ,M( Colle!"ions of li"erary. s!holarly. or ar"is"i! #or2s or of #or2s referred "o in Se!"ion 9 of "his De!ree #hi!h by reason of "he sele!"ion and arrangemen" of "heir !on"en"s !ons"i"u"e in"elle!"ual !rea"ions. "he same "o be pro"e!"ed as su!h in a!!ordan!e #i"h Se!"ion 8 of "his De!ree. ,?( ="her li"erary. s!holarly. s!ien"ifi! and ar"is"i! #or2s.
his pro$ision is subs"an"ially "he same as Q142 of "he %@ 6LL6C C8L &?=&6? B C=D6 => -6 &-%L%&&%@6S ,?.8. @o. 8295(.J11K he forma" or me!hani!s of a "ele$ision sho#

is no" in!luded in "he lis" of pro"e!"ed #or2s in Q2 of &.D. @o. :9. >or "his reason. "he pro"e!"ion afforded by "he la# !anno" be e/"ended "o !o$er "hem.

Copyrigh". in "he s"ri!" sense of "he "erm. is purely a s"a"u"ory righ". %" is a ne# or independen" righ" gran"ed by "he s"a"u"e. and no" simply a preEe/is"ing righ" regula"ed by "he s"a"u"e. Being a s"a"u"ory gran". "he righ"s are only su!h as "he s"a"u"e !onfers. and may be ob"ained and en)oyed only #i"h respe!" "o "he sub)e!"s and by "he persons. and on "erms and !ondi"ions spe!ified in "he s"a"u"e. J12K Sin!e . . . !opyrigh" in published #or2s is purely a s"a"u"ory !rea"ion. a !opyrigh" may be ob"ained only for a #or2 falling #i"hin "he s"a"u"ory enumera"ion or des!rip"ion. J15K ?egardless of "he his"ori!al $ie#poin". i" is au"hori"a"i$ely se""led in "he Cni"ed S"a"es "ha" "here is no !opyrigh" e/!ep" "ha" #hi!h is bo"h !rea"ed and se!ured by a!" of Congress . . . .J1:K
&.D. @o. :9. Q2. in enumera"ing #ha" are sub)e!" "o !opyrigh". refers "o finished #or2s and no" "o !on!ep"s. he !opyrigh" does no" e/"end "o an idea. pro!edure. pro!ess. sys"em. me"hod of opera"ion. !on!ep". prin!iple. or dis!o$ery. regardless of "he form in #hi!h i" is des!ribed. e/plained. illus"ra"ed. or embodied in su!h #or2.J1FK hus. "he ne# %@ 6LL6C C8L &?=&6? B C=D6
=> -6 &-%L%&&%@6S pro$ides'

Se!. 14F. 1nprotected Sub2ect (atter. E @o"#i"hs"anding "he pro$isions of Se!"ions 142 and 145. no pro"e!"ion shall e/"end. under "his la#. "o any idea. pro!edure. sys"em. me"hod or opera"ion. !on!ep". prin!iple. dis!o$ery or mere da"a as su!h. e$en if "hey are e/pressed. e/plained. illus"ra"ed or embodied in a #or2* ne#s of "he day and o"her mis!ellaneous fa!"s ha$ing "he !hara!"er of mere i"ems of press informa"ion* or any offi!ial "e/" of a legisla"i$e. adminis"ra"i$e or legal na"ure. as #ell as any offi!ial "ransla"ion "hereof.
<ha" "hen is "he sub)e!" ma""er of pe"i"ionersH !opyrigh"9 his Cour" is of "he opinion "ha" pe"i"ioner BL&%Hs !opyrigh" !o$ers audioE$isual re!ordings of ea!h episode of Rhoda and (e. as falling #i"hin "he !lass of #or2s men"ioned in &.D. :9. Q2,M(. "o #i"'

Cinema"ographi! #or2s and #or2s produ!ed by a pro!ess analogous "o !inema"ography or any pro!ess for ma2ing audioE$isual re!ordings*
he !opyrigh" does no" e/"end "o "he general !on!ep" or forma" of i"s da"ing game sho#. 8!!ordingly. by "he $ery na"ure of "he sub)e!" of pe"i"ioner BL&%Hs !opyrigh". "he in$es"iga"ing prose!u"or should ha$e "he oppor"uni"y "o !ompare "he $ideo"apes of "he "#o sho#s. Mere des!rip"ion by #ords of "he general forma" of "he "#o da"ing game sho#s is insuffi!ien"* "he presen"a"ion of "he mas"er $ideo"ape in e$iden!e #as indispensable "o "he de"ermina"ion of "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause. 8s ap"ly obser$ed by responden" Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e'

8 "ele$ision sho# in!ludes more "han mere #ords !an des!ribe be!ause i" in$ol$es a #hole spe!"rum of $isuals and effe!"s. $ideo and audio. su!h "ha" no similari"y or dissimilari"y may be found by merely des!ribing "he general !opyrigh"Oforma" of bo"h da"ing game sho#s.J1GK
(7&R&FOR&. "he pe"i"ion is hereby D%SM%SS6D. SO OR"&R&".

[G.R. No. 181922. Ju:y 19, 1999]

!ACI#A I. 7A ANA, A%ICIA %. CINCO and JO;I#A N. F&RNAN"O, petitioners, vs. F&%ICI"A" C. RO %&S and GOO"(I%% #RA"ING CO., INC., respondents. "&CISION
!AR"O, J.+

he !ase before us is a pe"i"ion for re$ie# on certiorariJ1K "o se" aside "he ,a( de!ision of "he Cour" of 8ppealsJ2K. and ,b( "he resolu"ion denying pe"i"ionersH mo"ion for re!onsidera"ion. J5K in #hi!h "he appella"e !our" affirmed "he "rial !our"Hs dismissal of "he !omplain" for infringemen" andOor unfair !ompe"i"ion and damages bu" dele"ed "he a#ard for a""orneyHs fees. he fa!"s are as follo#s' &e"i"ioners are au"hors and !opyrigh" o#ners of duly issued !er"ifi!a"es of !opyrigh" regis"ra"ion !o$ering "heir published #or2s. produ!ed "hrough "heir !ombined resour!es and effor"s. en"i"led C=LL6A6 6@AL%S- >=? =D8B ,C6 for bre$i"y(. Boo2s 1 and 2. and <=?DB==D >=? C=LL6A6 >?6S-M8@ 6@AL%S-. Series 1. ?esponden" >eli!idad ?obles and Aood#ill rading Co.. %n!. are "he au"horOpublisher and dis"ribu"orOseller of ano"her published #or2 en"i"led 0D676L=&%@A 6@AL%S&?=>%C%6@CB3 ,D6& for bre$i"y(. Boo2s 1 and 2 ,198F edi"ion( #hi!h boo2 #as !o$ered by !opyrigh"s issued "o "hem. %n "he !ourse of re$ising "heir published #or2s. pe"i"ioners s!ou"ed and loo2ed around $arious boo2s"ores "o !he!2 on o"her "e/"boo2s dealing #i"h "he same sub)e!" ma""er. By !han!e "hey !ame upon "he boo2 of responden" ?obles and upon perusal of said boo2 "hey #ere surprised "o see "ha" "he boo2 #as s"ri2ingly similar "o "he !on"en"s. s!heme of presen"a"ion. illus"ra"ions and illus"ra"i$e e/amples in "heir o#n boo2. C6 . 8f"er an i"emi;ed e/amina"ion and !omparison of "he "#o boo2s ,C6 and D6&(. pe"i"ioners found "ha" se$eral pages of "he responden"Hs boo2 are similar. if no" all "oge"her a !opy of pe"i"ionersH boo2. #hi!h is a !ase of plagiarism and !opyrigh" infringemen". &e"i"ioners "hen made demands for damages agains" responden"s and also demanded "ha" "hey !ease and desis" from fur"her selling and dis"ribu"ing "o "he general publi! "he infringed !opies of responden" ?oblesH #or2s. -o#e$er. responden"s ignored "he demands. hen!e. on Luly 4. 1988. pe"i"ioners filed #i"h "he ?egional rial Cour". Ma2a"i. a !omplain" for 0%nfringemen" andOor unfair !ompe"i"ion #i"h damages3J:Kagains" pri$a"e responden"s.JFK %n "he !omplain". pe"i"ioners alleged "ha" in 198F. responden" >eli!idad C. ?obles being subs"an"ially familiar #i"h "he !on"en"s of pe"i"ionersH #or2s. and #i"hou" se!uring "heir permission. lif"ed. !opied. plagiari;ed andOor "ransposed !er"ain por"ions of "heir boo2 C6 . he

"e/"ual !on"en"s and illus"ra"ions of C6 #ere li"erally reprodu!ed in "he boo2 D6&. he plagiarism. in!orpora"ion and reprodu!"ion of par"i!ular por"ions of "he boo2 C6 in "he boo2 D6&. #i"hou" "he au"hori"y or !onsen" of pe"i"ioners. and "he misrepresen"a"ions of responden" ?obles "ha" "he same #as her original #or2 and !on!ep" ad$ersely affe!"ed and subs"an"ially diminished "he sale of "he pe"i"ionersH boo2 and !aused "hem a!"ual damages by #ay of unreali;ed in!ome. Despi"e "he demands of "he pe"i"ioners for responden"s "o desis" from !ommi""ing fur"her a!"s of infringemen" and for responden" "o re!all D6& from "he mar2e". responden"s refused. &e"i"ioners as2ed "he !our" "o order "he submission of all !opies of "he boo2 D6&. "oge"her #i"h "he molds. pla"es and films and o"her ma"erials used in i"s prin"ing des"royed. and for responden"s "o render an a!!oun"ing of "he pro!eeds of all sales and profi"s sin!e "he "ime of i"s publi!a"ion and sale. ?esponden" ?obles #as impleaded in "he sui" be!ause she au"hored and dire!"ly !ommi""ed "he a!"s of infringemen" !omplained of. #hile responden" Aood#ill rading Co.. %n!. #as impleaded as "he publisher and )oin" !oEo#ner of "he !opyrigh" !er"ifi!a"es of regis"ra"ion !o$ering "he "#o boo2s au"hored and !aused "o be published by responden" ?obles #i"h ob$ious !onni$an!e #i"h one ano"her. =n Luly 24. 1988. responden" ?obles filed a mo"ion for a bill of par"i!ulars JGK #hi!h "he "rial !our" appro$ed on 8ugus" 14. 1988. &e"i"ioners !omplied #i"h "he desired par"i!ulari;a"ion. and furnished responden" ?obles "he spe!ifi! por"ions. in!lusi$e of pages and lines. of "he published and !opyrigh"ed boo2s of "he pe"i"ioners #hi!h #ere "ransposed. lif"ed. !opied and plagiari;ed andOor o"her#ise found "heir #ay in"o responden"Hs boo2. =n 8ugus" 1. 1988. responden" Aood#ill rading Co.. %n!. filed i"s ans#er "o "he !omplain"J4K and alleged "ha" pe"i"ioners had no !ause of a!"ion agains" Aood#ill rading Co.. %n!. sin!e i" #as no" pri$y "o "he misrepresen"a"ion. plagiarism. in!orpora"ion and reprodu!"ion of "he por"ions of "he boo2 of pe"i"ioners* "ha" "here #as an agreemen" be"#een Aood#ill and "he responden" ?obles "ha" ?obles guaran"eed Aood#ill "ha" "he ma"erials u"ili;ed in "he manus!rip" #ere her o#n or "ha" she had se!ured "he ne!essary permission from !on"ribu"ors and sour!es* "ha" "he au"hor assumed sole responsibili"y and held "he publisher #i"hou" any liabili"y. =n @o$ember 28. 1988. responden" ?obles filed her ans#erJ8K. and denied "he allega"ions of plagiarism and !opying "ha" pe"i"ioners !laimed. ?esponden" s"ressed "ha" ,1( "he boo2 D6& is "he produ!" of her independen" resear!hes. s"udies and e/perien!es. and #as no" a !opy of any e/is"ing $alid !opyrigh"ed boo2* ,2( D6& follo#ed "he s!ope and se1uen!e or syllabus #hi!h are !ommon "o all 6nglish grammar #ri"ers as re!ommended by "he 8sso!ia"ion of &hilippine Colleges of 8r"s and S!ien!es ,8&C8S(. so any similari"y be"#een "he responden"s boo2 and "ha" of "he pe"i"ioners #as due "o "he orien"a"ion of "he au"hors "o bo"h #or2s and s"andards and syllabus* and ,5( "he similari"ies may be due "o "he au"horsH e/er!ise of "he 0righ" "o fair use of !opyrig"hed ma"erials. as guides.3 ?esponden" in"erposed a !oun"er!laim for damages on "he ground "ha" bad fai"h and mali!e a""ended "he filing of "he !omplain". be!ause pe"i"ioner -abana #as professionally )ealous and "he boo2 D6& repla!ed C6 as "he offi!ial "e/"boo2 of "he gradua"e s"udies depar"men" of "he >ar 6as"ern Cni$ersi"y.J9K

During "he preE"rial !onferen!e. "he par"ies agreed "o a s"ipula"ion of fa!"sJ10K and for "he "rial !our" "o firs" resol$e "he issue of infringemen" before disposing of "he !laim for damages. 8f"er "he "rial on "he meri"s. on 8pril 25. 1995. "he "rial !our" rendered i"s )udgmen" finding "hus'

<(7&R&FOR&. premises !onsidered. "he !our" hereby orders "ha" "he !omplain" filed agains" defendan"s >eli!idad ?obles and Aood#ill rading Co.. %n!. shall be D%SM%SS6D* "ha" said plain"iffs solidarily reimburse defendan" ?obles for &20.000.00 a""orneyHs fees and defendan" Aood#ill for &F.000.00 a""orneyHs fees. &lain"iffs are liable for !os" of sui". I# IS SO OR"&R&". 0Done in "he Ci"y of Manila "his 25rd day of 8pril. 1995. 0,sO"( M8?7%6 ?. 8B?8-8M S%@AS=@ 08ssis"ing Ludge 0S. C. 8dm. =rder @o. 12:E923J11K
=n May 1:. 1995. pe"i"ioners filed "heir no"i!e of appeal #i"h "he "rial !our" J12K. and on Luly 19. 1995. "he !our" dire!"ed i"s bran!h !ler2 of !our" "o for#ard all "he re!ords of "he !ase "o "he Cour" of 8ppeals.J15K %n "he appeal. pe"i"ioners argued "ha" "he "rial !our" !omple"ely disregarded "heir e$iden!e and fully subs!ribed "o "he argumen"s of responden" ?obles "ha" "he boo2s in issue #ere purely "he produ!" of her resear!hes and s"udies and "ha" "he !opied por"ions #ere inspired by foreign au"hors and as su!h no" sub)e!" "o !opyrigh". &e"i"ioners also assailed "he findings of "he "rial !our" "ha" "hey #ere anima"ed by bad fai"h in ins"i"u"ing "he !omplain".J1:K =n Lune 24. 1994. "he Cour" of 8ppeals rendered )udgmen" in fa$or of responden"s ?obles and Aood#ill rading Co.. %n!. he rele$an" por"ions of "he de!ision s"a"e'

0%" mus" be no"ed. ho#e$er. "ha" similari"y of "he allegedly infringed #or2 "o "he au"horHs or proprie"orHs !opyrigh"ed #or2 does no" of i"self es"ablish !opyrigh" infringemen". espe!ially if "he similari"y resul"s from "he fa!" "ha" bo"h #or2s deal #i"h "he same sub)e!" or ha$e "he same !ommon sour!e. as in "his !ase. 8ppellee ?obles has fully e/plained "ha" "he por"ion or ma"erial of "he boo2 !laimed by appellan"s "o ha$e been !opied or lif"ed from foreign boo2s. She has duly pro$en "ha" mos" of "he "opi!s or ma"erials !on"ained in her boo2. #i"h par"i!ular referen!e "o "hose ma""ers !laimed by appellan"s "o ha$e been plagiari;ed #ere "opi!s or ma""ers appearing no" only in appellan"s and her boo2s bu" also in earlier boo2s on College 6nglish. in!luding foreign boo2s. e.i. 6dmund Bur2eHs 0Spee!h on Con!ilia"ion3. BoerigsH 0Compe"en!e in 6nglish3 and Brough"onHs. 06dmund Bur2eHs Colle!"ion.3

///

08ppellan"Hs relian!e on "he las" paragraph on Se!"ion 11 is mispla!ed. %" mus" be emphasi;ed "ha" "hey failed "o pro$e "ha" "heir boo2s #ere made sour!es by appellee.3J1FK
he Cour" of 8ppeals #as of "he $ie# "ha" "he a#ard of a""orneysH fees #as no" proper. sin!e "here #as no bad fai"h on "he par" of pe"i"ioners -abana e" al. in ins"i"u"ing "he a!"ion agains" responden"s. =n Luly 12. 1994. pe"i"ioners filed a mo"ion for re!onsidera"ion. J1GK ho#e$er. "he Cour" of 8ppeals denied "he same in a ?esolu"ionJ14K da"ed @o$ember 2F. 1994. -en!e. "his pe"i"ion. %n "his appeal. pe"i"ioners submi" "ha" "he appella"e !our" erred in affirming "he "rial !our"Hs de!ision. &e"i"ioners raised "he follo#ing issues' ,1( #he"her or no". despi"e "he apparen" "e/"ual. "hema"i! and se1uen"ial similari"y be"#een D6& and C6 . responden"s !ommi""ed no !opyrigh" infringemen"* ,2( #he"her or no" "here #as ani.us furandi on "he par" of responden" #hen "hey refused "o #i"hdra# "he !opies of C6 from "he mar2e" despi"e no"i!e "o #i"hdra# "he same* and ,5( #he"her or no" responden" ?obles abused a #ri"erHs righ" "o fair use. in $iola"ion of Se!"ion 11 of &residen"ial De!ree @o. :9.J18K <e find "he pe"i"ion impressed #i"h meri". he !omplain" for !opyrigh" infringemen" #as filed a" "he "ime "ha" &residen"ial De!ree @o. :9 #as in for!e. 8" presen". all la#s dealing #i"h "he pro"e!"ion of in"elle!"ual proper"y righ"s ha$e been !onsolida"ed and as "he la# no# s"ands. "he pro"e!"ion of !opyrigh"s is go$erned by ?epubli! 8!" @o. 8295. @o"#i"hs"anding "he !hange in "he la#. "he same prin!iples are rei"era"ed in "he ne# la# under Se!"ion 144. %" pro$ides for "he !opy or e!onomi! righ"s of an o#ner of a !opyrigh" as follo#s'

0Se!.144. Copy or 6!onomi! righ"s.SSub)e!" "o "he pro$isions of !hap"er 7%%%. !opyrigh" or e!onomi! righ"s shall !onsis" of "he e/!lusi$e righ" "o !arry ou". au"hori;e or pre$en" "he follo#ing a!"s' 177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work; 144.2 Drama"i;a"ion. "ransla"ion. adap"a"ion. abridgemen". arrangemen" or o"her "ransforma"ion of "he #or2* 144.5 he firs" publi! dis"ribu"ion of "he original and ea!h !opy of "he #or2 by sale or o"her forms of "ransfer of o#nership* 144.: ?en"al of "he original or a !opy of an audio$isual or !inema"ographi! #or2. a #or2 embodied in a sound re!ording. a !ompu"er program. a !ompila"ion of da"a and

o"her ma"erials or a musi!al #or2 in graphi! form. irrespe!"i$e of "he o#nership of "he original or "he !opy #hi!h is "he sub)e!" of "he ren"al* ,n( 144.F &ubli! display of "he original or !opy of "he #or2* 144.G &ubli! performan!e of "he #or2* and 144.4 ="her !ommuni!a"ion "o "he publi! of "he #or23 J19K
he la# also pro$ided for "he limi"a"ions on !opyrigh". "hus'

0Se!. 18:.1 Limi"a"ions on !opyrigh".EE @o"#i"hs"anding "he pro$isions of Chap"er 7. "he follo#ing a!"s shall no" !ons"i"u"e infringemen" of !opyrigh"'
,a( "he re!i"a"ion or performan!e of a #or2. on!e i" has been la#fully made a!!essible "o "he publi!. if done pri$a"ely and free of !harge or if made s"ri!"ly for a !hari"able or religious ins"i"u"ion or so!ie"y* JSe!. 10,1(. &.D. @o. :9K ,b( he ma2ing of 1uo"a"ions from a published #or2 if "hey are !ompa"ible #i"h fair use and only "o "he e/"en" )us"ified for "he purpose. in!luding 1uo"a"ions from ne#spaper ar"i!les and periodi!als in "he form of press summaries* &ro$ided. "ha" "he sour!e and "he name of "he au"hor. if appearing on "he #or2 are men"ioned* ,Se!. 11 "hird par. &.D.:9(

////

////

////

,e( The inclusion of a work in a publication. broad!as". or o"her !ommuni!a"ion "o "he publi!. sound re!ording of film. if su!h in!lusion is made by #ay of illus"ra"ion for "ea!hing purposes and is !ompa"ible #i"h fair use' Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing in the work is mentioned;J20K

%n "he abo$e 1uo"ed pro$isions. 0#or23 has referen!e "o li"erary and ar"is"i! !rea"ions and "his in!ludes boo2s and o"her li"erary. s!holarly and s!ien"ifi! #or2s.J21K 8 perusal of "he re!ords yields se$eral pages of "he boo2 D6& "ha" are similar if no" iden"i!al #i"h "he "e/" of C6 . =n page :0: of pe"i"ionersH Boo2 1 of College 6nglish for oday. "he au"hors #ro"e' %"ems in da"es and addresses'

-e died on Monday. 8pril 1F. 194F. Miss ?eyes li$es in 21: af" 8$enue. ManilaJ22K
=n page 45 of responden"s Boo2 1 De$eloping 6nglish oday. "hey #ro"e'

-e died on Monday. 8pril 2F. 194F. Miss ?eyes address is 21: af" 8$enue ManilaJ25K
=n &age 2F0 of C6 . "here is "his e/ample on parallelism or repe"i"ion of sen"en!e s"ru!"ures. "hus'

0 he proposi"ion is pea!e. @o" pea!e "hrough "he medium of #ar* no" pea!e "o be hun"ed "hrough "he labyrin"h of in"ri!a"e and endless nego"ia"ions* no" pea!e "o arise ou" of uni$ersal dis!ord. fomen"ed from prin!iple. in all par"s of "he empire* no" pea!e "o depend on "he )uridi!al de"ermina"ion of perple/ing 1ues"ions. or "he pre!ise mar2ing of "he boundary of a !omple/ go$ernmen". %" is simple pea!e* sough" in i"s na"ural !ourse. and in i"s ordinary haun"s. %" is pea!e sough" in "he spiri" of pea!e. and laid in prin!iples purely pa!ifi!. EEE 6dmund Bur2e. 0 Spee!h on Cri"i!ism.3 J2:K
=n page 100 of "he boo2 D6&J2FK. also in "he "opi! of parallel s"ru!"ure and repe"i"ion. "he same e/ample is found in toto. he only differen!e is "ha" pe"i"ioners a!2no#ledged "he au"hor 6dmund Bur2e. and responden"s did no". %n se$eral o"her pagesJ2GK "he "rea"men" and manner of presen"a"ion of "he "opi!s of D6& are similar if no" a rehash of "ha" !on"ained in C6 . <e belie$e "ha" responden" ?oblesH a!" of lif"ing from "he boo2 of pe"i"ioners subs"an"ial por"ions of dis!ussions and e/amples. and her failure "o a!2no#ledge "he same in her boo2 is an infringemen" of pe"i"ionersH !opyrigh"s. <hen is "here a subs"an"ial reprodu!"ion of a boo29 %" does no" ne!essarily re1uire "ha" "he en"ire !opyrigh"ed #or2. or e$en a large por"ion of i". be !opied. %f so mu!h is "a2en "ha" "he $alue of "he original #or2 is subs"an"ially diminished. "here is an infringemen" of !opyrigh" and "o an in)urious e/"en". "he #or2 is appropria"ed.J24K %n de"ermining "he 1ues"ion of infringemen". "he amoun" of ma""er !opied from "he !opyrigh"ed #or2 is an impor"an" !onsidera"ion. o !ons"i"u"e infringemen". i" is no" ne!essary "ha" "he #hole or e$en a large por"ion of "he #or2 shall ha$e been !opied. %f so mu!h is "a2en "ha" "he $alue of "he original is sensibly diminished. or "he labors of "he original au"hor are subs"an"ially and "o an in)urious e/"en" appropria"ed by ano"her. "ha" is suffi!ien" in poin" of la# "o !ons"i"u"e pira!y.J28K he essen!e of in"elle!"ual pira!y should be essayed in !on!ep"ual "erms in order "o unders!ore i"s gra$i"y by an appropria"e unders"anding "hereof. %nfringemen" of a !opyrigh" is a "respass on a pri$a"e domain o#ned and o!!upied by "he o#ner of "he !opyrigh". and. "herefore. pro"e!"ed by la#. and infringemen" of !opyrigh". or pira!y. #hi!h is a synonymous "erm in "his !onne!"ion. !onsis"s in "he doing by any person. #i"hou" "he !onsen" of "he o#ner of "he !opyrigh". of any"hing "he sole righ" "o do #hi!h is !onferred by s"a"u"e on "he o#ner of "he !opyrigh".J29K he responden"sH !laim "ha" "he !opied por"ions of "he boo2 C6 are also found in foreign boo2s and o"her grammar boo2s. and "ha" "he similari"y be"#een her s"yle and "ha" of pe"i"ioners !an no" be a$oided sin!e "hey !ome from "he same ba!2ground and orien"a"ion may be "rue. -o#e$er. in "his )urisdi!"ion under Se! 18: of ?epubli! 8!" 8295 i" is pro$ided "ha"' Limi"a"ions on Copyrigh". @o"#i"hs"anding "he pro$isions of Chap"er 7. "he follo#ing shall no" !ons"i"u"e infringemen" of !opyrigh"'

////

////

////

c! he ma2ing of 1uo"a"ions from a published #or2 if "hey are !ompa"ible #i"h fair use and only "o "he e/"en" )us"ified for "he purpose. in!luding 1uo"a"ions from ne#spaper ar"i!les and periodi!als in "he form of press summaries " Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

8 !opy of a pira!y is an infringemen" of "he original. and i" is no defense "ha" "he pira"e. in su!h !ases. did no" 2no# #he"her or no" he #as infringing any !opyrigh"* he a" leas" 2ne# "ha" #ha" he #as !opying #as no" his. and he !opied a" his peril.J50K he ne/" 1ues"ion "o resol$e is "o #ha" e/"en" !an !opying be in)urious "o "he au"hor of "he boo2 being !opied. %s i" enough "ha" "here are similari"ies in some se!"ions of "he boo2s or large segmen"s of "he boo2s are "he same9 %n "he !ase a" bar. "here is no 1ues"ion "ha" pe"i"ioners presen"ed se$eral pages of "he boo2s C6 and D6& "ha" more or less had "he same !on"en"s. %" may be !orre!" "ha" "he boo2s being grammar boo2s may !on"ain ma"erials similar as "o some "e!hni!al !on"en"s #i"h o"her grammar boo2s. su!h as "he segmen" abou" "he 08u"hor Card3. -o#e$er. "he numerous pages "ha" "he pe"i"ioners presen"ed sho#ing similari"y in "he s"yle and "he manner "he boo2s #ere presen"ed and "he iden"i!al e/amples !an no" pass as similari"ies merely be!ause of "e!hni!al !onsidera"ion. he responden"s !laim "ha" "heir similari"y in s"yle !an be a""ribu"ed "o "he fa!" "ha" bo"h of "hem #ere e/posed "o "he 8&C8S syllabus and "heir respe!"i$e a!ademi! e/perien!e. "ea!hing approa!h and me"hodology are almos" iden"i!al be!ause "hey #ere of "he same ba!2ground. -o#e$er. #e belie$e "ha" e$en if pe"i"ioners and responden" ?obles #ere of "he same ba!2ground in "erms of "ea!hing e/perien!e and orien"a"ion. i" is no" an e/!use for "hem "o be iden"i!al e$en in e/amples !on"ained in "heir boo2s. he similari"ies in e/amples and ma"erial !on"en"s are so ob$iously presen" in "his !ase. -o# !an similarOiden"i!al e/amples no" be !onsidered as a mar2 of !opying9 <e !onsider as an indicia of guil" or #rongdoing "he a!" of responden" ?obles of pulling ou" from Aood#ill boo2s"ores "he boo2 D6& upon learning of pe"i"ionersH !omplain" #hile pharisai!ally denying pe"i"ionersH demand. %" #as fur"her no"ed "ha" #hen "he boo2 D6& #as reE issued as a re$ised $ersion. all "he pages !i"ed by pe"i"ioners "o !on"ain por"ion of "heir boo2 College 6nglish for oday #ere elimina"ed. %n !ases of infringemen". !opying alone is no" #ha" is prohibi"ed. he !opying mus" produ!e an 0in)urious effe!"3. -ere. "he in)ury !onsis"s in "ha" responden" ?obles lif"ed from pe"i"ionersH boo2 ma"erials "ha" #ere "he resul" of "he la""erHs resear!h #or2 and !ompila"ion and misrepresen"ed "hem as her o#n. She !ir!ula"ed "he boo2 D6& for !ommer!ial use and did no" a!2no#ledge pe"i"ioners as her sour!e. -en!e. "here is a !lear !ase of appropria"ion of !opyrigh"ed #or2 for her benefi" "ha" responden" ?obles !ommi""ed. &e"i"ionersH #or2 as au"hors is "he produ!" of "heir long and assiduous resear!h and for ano"her "o represen" i" as her o#n is in)ury enough. %n !opyrigh"ing boo2s "he purpose is "o gi$e pro"e!"ion "o "he in"elle!"ual produ!" of an au"hor. his is pre!isely #ha" "he la# on !opyrigh" pro"e!"ed. under Se!"ion 18:.1 ,b(. Muo"a"ions from a published #or2 if "hey are !ompa"ible #i"h fair use and only "o "he e/"en" )us"ified by "he purpose. in!luding

1uo"a"ions from ne#spaper ar"i!les and periodi!als in "he form of press summaries are allo#ed pro$ided "ha" "he sour!e and "he name of "he au"hor. if appearing on "he #or2. are men"ioned. %n "he !ase a" bar. "he leas" "ha" responden" ?obles !ould ha$e done #as "o a!2no#ledge pe"i"ioners -abana e". al. as "he sour!e of "he por"ions of D6&. he final produ!" of an au"horHs "oil is her boo2. o allo# ano"her "o !opy "he boo2 #i"hou" appropria"e a!2no#ledgmen" is in)ury enough. (7&R&FOR&. "he pe"i"ion is hereby A?8@ 6D. he de!ision and resolu"ion of "he Cour" of 8ppeals in C8EA. ?. C7 @o. ::0F5 are S6 8S%D6 . he !ase is ordered remanded "o "he "rial !our" for fur"her pro!eedings "o re!ei$e e$iden!e of "he par"ies "o as!er"ain "he damages !aused and sus"ained by pe"i"ioners and "o render de!ision in a!!ordan!e #i"h "he e$iden!e submi""ed "o i". SO OR"&R&". 3apunan0 and 4nares5Santiago0 66.0 !on!ur. Da*ide0 6r.0 C.6.0 7Chair.an80 pls. see dissen"ing opinion. (elo0 6.0 no par". &ersonal reasons.

G.R. No. L016202 M%&+3 16, 1945

FILIPINO SOCIE! OF COMPOSERS, A#!HORS AN) P#"LISHERS, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs "ENJAMIN !AN, defendant-appellee .ichauco, %ica+o & Agcaoili .a/ 0ffice for plaintiff,appellant. Ramon A. -ieves for defendant,appellee.

PARAS, J.: An appeal was 'ade to the Court of Appeals doc4eted as CA-G R #o &E+$+-R 6 entitled 1ilipino Societ* of Composers,
Authors, %u2lishers, Inc., %laintiff,Appellant v. 3en!amin Tan, $efendant,Appellee, fro' the decision of the Court of -irst ;nstance of 0anila, 1ranch C;; in Civil Case #o $1222 66 41ilipino Societ* of Composers, Authors and %u2lishers, Inc., %laintiff v. 3en!amin Tan, $efendant,4 which had dis'issed plaintiffsJ co'plaint without special pronounce'ent as to costs

The Court of Appeals, findin( that the case involves pure 2uestions of law, certified the sa'e to the !upre'e Court for final deter'ination (Resolution, CA-G R #o &E+$+-R, Rollo, p +EB Resolution of the !upre'e Court of -e.ruar* 1E, 1@$+ in 7-+E&%2, Rollo, p +?) The undisputed facts of this case are as followsA "laintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors, co'posers and pu.lishers dul* or(ani>ed under the Corporation 7aw of the "hilippines and re(istered with the !ecurities and 8Ichan(e Co''ission !aid association is the owner of certain 'usical co'positions a'on( which are the son(s entitledA KDahil !a ;*oK, K!apa(4at ;4aw A* A4in,K K!apa(4at La'i A* Tao 7a'an(K and KThe #earness /f :ou K /n the other hand, defendant-appellee is the operator of a restaurant 4nown as KAleI !oda -oundation and RestaurantK where a co'.o with professional sin(ers, hired to pla* and sin( 'usical co'positions to entertain and a'use custo'ers therein, were pla*in( and sin(in( the a.ove-'entioned co'positions without an* license or per'ission fro' the appellant to pla* or sin( the sa'e Accordin(l*, appellant de'anded fro' the appellee pa*'ent of the necessar* license fee for the pla*in( and sin(in( of aforesaid co'positions .ut the de'and was i(nored Gence, on #ove'.er $, 1@E$, appellant filed a co'plaint with the lower court for infrin(e'ent of cop*ri(ht a(ainst defendant-appellee for allowin( the pla*in( in defendant-appelleeJs restaurant of said son(s cop*ri(hted in the na'e of the for'er Defendant-appellee, in his answer, countered that the co'plaint states no cause of action 3hile not den*in( the pla*in( of said cop*ri(hted co'positions in his esta.lish'ent, appellee 'aintains that the 'ere sin(in( and pla*in( of son(s and popular tunes even if the* are cop*ri(hted do not constitute an infrin(e'ent (Record on Appeal, p 11B Resolution, CA-G R #/ &E+$+-R, Rollo, pp +2-+E) under the provisions of !ection + of the Cop*ri(ht 7aw (Act +1+& of the "hilippine 7e(islature) The lower court, findin( for the defendant, dis'issed the co'plaint (Record on Appeal, p 2=) "laintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which as alread* stated certified the case to the !upre'e Court for adDudication on the le(al 2uestion involved (Resolution, Court of Appeals, Rollo, p +EB Resolution of the !upre'e Court of -e.ruar* 1?, 1@$+, Rollo, p +?) ;n its .rief in the Court of Appeals, appellant raised the followin( Assi(n'ent of 8rrorsA ; TG8 7/38R C/5RT 8RR8D ;# G/7D;#G TGAT TG8 05!;CA7 C/0"/!;T;/#! /- TG8 A""877A#T 38R8 ;# TG8 #AT5R8 /- "517;C "R/"8RT: 3G8# TG8: 38R8 C/":R;GGT8D /R R8G;!T8R8D

;; TG8 7/38R C/5RT 8RR8D ;# G/7D;#G TGAT TG8 05!;CA7 C/0"/!;T;/#! /- TG8 A""877A#T 38R8 "7A:8D A#D !5#G ;# TG8 !/DA -/5#TA;# A#D R8!TA5RA#T /- TG8 A""87788 1: ;#D8"8#D8#T C/#TRACT/R! A#D /#7: 5"/# TG8 R8M58!T /- C5!T/08R! ;;; TG8 7/38R C/5RT 8RR8D ;# G/7D;#G TGAT TG8 "7A:;#G A#D !;#G;#G /- C/":R;GGT8D 05!;CA7 C/0"/!;T;/#! ;# TG8 !/DA -/5#TA;# A#D R8!TA5RA#T /- TG8 A""87788 AR8 #/T "517;C "8R-/R0A#C8! -/R "R/-;T /- TG8 !A;D C/0"/!;T;/#! 3;TG;# TG8 08A#;#G A#D C/#T80"7AT;/# /- TG8 C/":R;GGT 7A3 ;C TG8 7/38R C/5RT 8RR8D ;# #/T G/7D;#G TGAT TG8 A""87788 ;! 7;A178 T/ TG8 A""877A#T -/R -/5R (&) !8"ARAT8 ;#-R;#G808#T! (1rief for Appellant, pp A and 1) The petition is devoid of 'erit The principal issues in this case are whether or not the pla*in( and si(nin( of 'usical co'positions which have .een cop*ri(hted under the provisions of the Cop*ri(ht 7aw (Act +1+&) inside the esta.lish'ent of the defendant-appellee constitute a pu.lic perfor'ance for profit within the 'eanin( and conte'plation of the Cop*ri(ht 7aw of the "hilippinesB and assu'in( that there were indeed pu.lic perfor'ances for profit, whether or not appellee can .e held lia.le therefor Appellant anchors its clai' on !ection +(c) of the Cop*ri(ht 7aw which providesA !8C + The proprietor of a cop*ri(ht or his heirs or assi(ns shall have the eIclusive ri(htA III III III (c) To eIhi.it, perfor', represent, produce, or reproduce the cop*ri(hted wor4 in an* 'anner or .* an* 'ethod whatever for profit or otherwiseB if not reproduced in copies for sale, to sell an* 'anuscripts or an* record whatsoever thereofB III III III ;t 'aintains that pla*in( or sin(in( a 'usical co'position is universall* accepted as perfor'in( the 'usical co'position and that pla*in( and sin(in( of cop*ri(hted 'usic in the soda fountain and restaurant of the appellee for the entertain'ent of the custo'ers althou(h the latter do not pa* for the 'usic .ut onl* for the food and drin4 constitute perfor'ance for profit under the Cop*ri(ht 7aw (1rief for the Appellant, pp 1@-2=) 3e concede that indeed there were Kpu.lic perfor'ances for profit K The word Kperfor'K as used in the Act has .een applied to K/ne who pla*s a 'usical co'position on a piano, there.* producin( in the air sound waves which are heard as 'usic and if the instru'ent he pla*s on is a piano plus a .roadcastin( apparatus, so that waves are thrown out, not onl* upon the air, .ut upon the other, then also he is perfor'in( the 'usical co'position K (1uc4, et al v Duncan, et al B !a'e )ewell 7a !alle Realt* Co , +2- 2d !eries +E$) ;n relation thereto, it has .een held that KThe pla*in( of 'usic in dine and dance esta.lish'ent which was paid for .* the pu.lic in purchases of food and drin4 constituted Kperfor'ance for profitK within a Cop*ri(ht 7aw K (1uc4, et al v Russon #o &&?@ 2= - !upp +1$) Thus, it has .een eIplained that while it is possi.le in such esta.lish'ents for the patrons to purchase their food and drin4s and at the sa'e ti'e dance to the 'usic of the orchestra, the 'usic is furnished and used .* the orchestra for the purpose of inducin( the pu.lic to patroni>e the esta.lish'ent and pa* for

the entertain'ent in the purchase of food and drin4s The defendant conducts his place of .usiness for profit, and it is pu.licB and the 'usic is perfor'ed for profit (I2id, p +1@) ;n a si'ilar case, the Court ruled that KThe "erfor'ance in a restaurant or hotel dinin( roo', .* persons e'plo*ed .* the proprietor, of a cop*ri(hted 'usical co'position, for the entertain'ent of patrons, without char(e for ad'ission to hear it, infrin(es the eIclusive ri(ht of the owner of the cop*ri(ht K (Ger.ert v !hanle* Co B )ohn Church Co v Gillard Gotel Co , et al , 2&2 5 ! =@%-=@1) ;n deliverin( the opinion of the Court in said two cases, )ustice Gol'es ela.orated thusA ;f the ri(hts under the cop*ri(ht are infrin(ed onl* .* a perfor'ance where 'one* is ta4en at the door, the* are ver* i'perfectl* protected "erfor'ances not different in 4ind fro' those of the defendants could .e (iven that 'i(ht co'pete with and even destro* the success of the 'onopol* that the law intends the plaintiffs to have ;t is enou(h to sa* that there is no need to construe the statute so narrowl* The defendantsJ perfor'ances are not elee'os*nar* The* are part of a total for which the pu.lic pa*s, and the fact that the price of the whole is attri.uted to a particular ite' which those present are eIpected to order is not i'portant ;t is true that the 'usic is not the sole o.Dect, .ut neither is the food, which pro.a.l* could .e (ot cheaper elsewhere The o.Dect is a repast in surroundin(s that to people havin( li'ited power of conversation or disli4in( the rival noise, (ive a luIurious pleasure not to .e had fro' eatin( a silent 'eal ;f 'usic did not pa*, it would .e (iven up ;f it pa*s, it pa*s out of the pu.licJs poc4et 3hether it pa*s or not, the purpose of e'plo*in( it is profit, and that is enou(h (I2id , p =@&) ;n the case at .ar, it is ad'itted that the patrons of the restaurant in 2uestion pa* onl* for the food and drin4s and apparentl* not for listenin( to the 'usic As found .* the trial court, the 'usic provided is for the purpose of entertainin( and a'usin( the custo'ers in order to 'a4e the esta.lish'ent 'ore attractive and desira.le (Record on Appeal, p 21) ;t will .e noted that for the pla*in( and sin(in( the 'usical co'positions involved, the co'.o was paid as independent contractors .* the appellant (Record on Appeal, p 2&) ;t is therefore o.vious that the eIpenses entailed there.* are added to the overhead of the restaurant which are either eventuall* char(ed in the price of the food and drin4s or to the overall total of additional inco'e produced .* the .i((er volu'e of .usiness which the entertain'ent was pro(ra''ed to attract Conse2uentl*, it is .e*ond 2uestion that the pla*in( and sin(in( of the co'.o in defendant-appelleeJs restaurant constituted perfor'ance for profit conte'plated .* the Cop*ri(ht 7aw (Act +1+& a'ended .* " D #o &@, as a'ended) #evertheless, appellee cannot .e said to have infrin(ed upon the Cop*ri(ht 7aw AppelleeJs alle(ation that the co'posers of the contested 'usical co'positions /aived their ri(ht in favor of the (eneral pu.lic when the* allowed their intellectual creations to .eco'e propert* of the pu.lic do'ain .efore appl*in( for the correspondin( cop*ri(hts for the sa'e (1rief for Defendant-Appellee, pp 1&-1=) is correct The !upre'e Court has ruled that K"ara(raph ++ of "atent /ffice Ad'inistrative /rder #o + (as a'ended, dated !epte'.er 1?, 1@&$) entitled JRules of "ractice in the "hilippines "atent /ffice relatin( to the Re(istration of Cop*ri(ht Clai'sJ pro'ul(ated pursuant to Repu.lic Act 1E=, provides a'on( other thin(s that an intellectual creation should .e cop*ri(hted thirt* (+%) da*s after its pu.lication, if 'ade in 0anila, or within the (E%) da*s if 'ade elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation pu.lic propert* K (!antos v 0cCullou(h "rintin( Co'pan*, 12 !CRA +2&-+2= [1@E&] ;ndeed, if the (eneral pu.lic has 'ade use of the o.Dect sou(ht to .e cop*ri(hted for thirt* (+%) da*s prior to the cop*ri(ht application the law dee's the o.Dect to have .een donated to the pu.lic do'ain and the sa'e can no lon(er .e cop*ri(hted A careful stud* of the records reveals that the son( KDahil !a ;*oK which was re(istered on April 2%, 1@=E (1rief for Appellant, p 1%) .eca'e popular in radios, Du4e .oIes, etc lon( .efore re(istration (T!#, 0a* 2?, 1@E?, pp +-=B 2=) while the son( KThe #earness /f :ouK re(istered on )anuar* 1&, 1@== (1rief for Appellant, p 1%) had .eco'e popular twent* five (2=) *ears prior to 1@E?, (the *ear of the hearin() or fro' 1@&+ (T!#, 0a* 2?, 1@E?, p 2$) and the son(s K!apa(4at ;4aw A* A4inK and K!apa(4at La'i A* Tao 7a'an(K .oth re(istered on )ul* 1%, 1@EE, appear to have .een 4nown and san( .* the witnesses as earl* as 1@E= or three *ears .efore the hearin( in 1@E? The testi'onies of the witnesses at the hearin( of this case on this su.Dect were unre.utted .* the appellant (I2id, pp 2?B 2@ and +%) 5nder the circu'stances, it is clear that the 'usical co'positions in 2uestion had lon( .eco'e pu.lic propert*, and are therefore .e*ond the protection of the Cop*ri(ht 7aw "R80;!8! C/#!;D8R8D, the appealed decision of the Court of -irst ;nstance of 0anila in Civil Case #o $1222 is here.* A--;R08D

!/ /RD8R8D 1ernan 'Chairman(, 5utierre+, "r., %adilla, 3idin and Cortes, ""., concur. Alampa*, "., too6 no par

[G.R. No. 110114. Au7u-, 24, 1996]

COL#M"IA PIC!#RES, INC., ORION PIC!#RES CORPORA!ION, PARAMO#N! PIC!#RES CORPORA!ION, !WEN!IE!H CEN!#R FO8 FILM CORPORA!ION, #NI!E) AR!IS!S CORPORA!ION, #NI9ERSAL CI! S!#)IOS, INC., !HE WAL! )ISNE COMPAN , %n' WARNER "RO!HERS, INC., petitioners, vs. CO#R! OF APPEALS, S#NSHINE HOME 9I)EO, INC. %n' )ANILO A. PELIN)ARIO,respondents. )ECISION
REGALA)O, J./

1efore us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals pro'ul(ated on )ul* 22, 1@@2 and its resolution of 0a* 1%, 1@@+ den*in( petitionersH 'otion for reconsideration, .oth of which sustained the order of the Re(ional Trial Court, 1ranch 1++, 0a4ati, 0etro 0anila, dated #ove'.er 22, 1@?? for the 2uashal of !earch 3arrant #o ?$-%=+ earlier issued per its own order on !epte'.er =, 1@?? for violation of !ection =E of "residential Decree #o &@, as a'ended, otherwise 4nown as the 6Decree on the "rotection of ;ntellectual "ropert* 9
[1] [2] [+] [&]

The 'aterial facts found .* respondent appellate court are as followsA Co'plainants thru counsel lod(ed a for'al co'plaint with the #ational 1ureau of ;nvesti(ation for violation of "D #o &@, as a'ended, and sou(ht its assistance in their anti-fil' pirac* drive A(ents of the #1; and private researchers 'ade discreet surveillance on various video esta.lish'ents in 0etro 0anila includin( !unshine Go'e Cideo ;nc (!unshine for .revit*), owned and operated .* Danilo A "elindario with address at #o E 0a*fair Center, 0a(allanes, 0a4ati, 0etro 0anila /n #ove'.er 1&, 1@?$, #1; !enior A(ent 7auro C Re*es applied for a search warrant with the court a #uo a(ainst !unshine see4in( the sei>ure, a'on( others, of pirated video tapes of cop*ri(hted fil's all of which were enu'erated in a list attached to the applicationB and, television sets, video cassettes and<or laser disc recordin(s e2uip'ent and other 'achines and paraphernalia used or intended to .e used in the unlawful eIhi.ition, showin(, reproduction, sale, lease or disposition of video(ra's tapes in the pre'ises a.ove descri.ed ;n the hearin( of the application, #1; !enior A(ent 7auro C Re*es, upon 2uestions .* the court a #uo, reiterated in su.stance his

aver'ents in his affidavit Gis testi'on* was corro.orated .* another witness, 0r Rene C 1alta>ar Att* Rico C Do'in(oHs deposition was also ta4en /n the .asis of the affidavits and depositions of #1; !enior A(ent 7auro C Re*es, Rene C 1alta>ar and Att* Rico C Do'in(o, !earch 3arrant #o ?$-%=+ for violation of !ection =E of "D #o &@, as a'ended, was issued .* the court a #uo The search warrant was served at a.out 1A&= p ' on Dece'.er 1&, 1@?$ to !unshine and<or their representatives ;n the course of the search of the pre'ises indicated in the search warrant, the #1; A(ents found and sei>ed various video tapes of dul* cop*ri(hted 'otion pictures<fil's owned or eIclusivel* distri.uted .* private co'plainants, and 'achines, e2uip'ent, television sets, paraphernalia, 'aterials, accessories all of which were included in the receipt for properties acco'plished .* the raidin( tea' Cop* of the receipt was furnished and<or tendered to 0r Danilo A "elindario, re(istered owner-proprietor of !unshine Go'e Cideo /n Dece'.er 1E, 1@?$, a 6Return of !earch 3arrant9 was filed with the Court A 60otion To 7ift the /rder of !earch 3arrant9 was filed .ut was later denied for lac4 of 'erit (p 2?%, Records) A 0otion for reconsideration of the /rder of denial was filed The court a #uo (ranted the said 'otion for reconsideration and Dustified it in this 'annerA 0%" is undispu"ed "ha" "he mas"er "apes of "he !opyrigh"ed films from #hi!h "he pira"ed films #ere allegedly !opies ,si!(. #ere ne$er presen"ed in "he pro!eedings for "he issuan!e of "he sear!h #arran"s in 1ues"ion. he orders of "he Cour" gran"ing "he sear!h #arran"s and denying "he urgen" mo"ion "o lif" order of sear!h #arran"s #ere. "herefore. issued in error. Conse1uen"ly. "hey mus" be se" aside.3 ,p. 15. 8ppellan"Hs Brief(
JFK

"etitioners thereafter appealed the order of the trial court (rantin( private respondentsH 'otion for reconsideration, thus liftin( the search warrant which it had therefore issued, to the Court of Appeals As stated at the outset, said appeal was dis'issed and the 'otion for reconsideration thereof was denied Gence, this petition was .rou(ht to this Court particularl* challen(in( the validit* of respondent courtHs retroactive application of the rulin( in 78th Centur* 1ox 1ilm Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al , in dis'issin( petitionersH appeal and upholdin( the 2uashal of the search warrant .* the trial court
[E]

;nceptivel*, we shall settle the procedural considerations on the 'atter of and the challen(e to petitionersH le(al standin( in our courts, the* .ein( forei(n corporations not licensed to do .usiness in the "hilippines "rivate respondents aver that .ein( forei(n corporations, petitioners should have such license to .e a.le to 'aintain an action in "hilippine courts ;n so challen(in( petitionersH personalit* to sue, private respondents point to the fact that petitioners are the cop*ri(ht owners or owners of eIclusive ri(hts of distri.ution in the "hilippines of cop*ri(hted 'otion pictures or fil's, and also to the appoint'ent of Att* Rico C Do'in(o as their attorne*-in-fact, as .ein( constitutive of 6doin( .usiness in the "hilippines9 under !ection 1(f) (1) and (2), Rule 1 of the Rules of the 1oard of ;nvest'ents As forei(n corporations doin( .usiness in the "hilippines, !ection 1++ of 1atas "a'.ansa 1l( E?, or the Corporation Code of the "hilippines, denies the' the ri(ht to 'aintain a suit in "hilippine courts in the a.sence of a license to do .usiness Conse2uentl*, the* have no ri(ht to as4 for the issuance of a search warrant
[$]

;n refutation, petitioners flatl* den* that the* are doin( .usiness in the "hilippines, and contend that private respondents have not adduced evidence to prove that petitioners are doin( such .usiness here, as would re2uire the' to .e licensed .* the !ecurities and 8Ichan(e Co''ission, other than aver'ents in the 2uoted portions of petitionersH 6/pposition to 5r(ent 0otion to 7ift /rder of !earch 3arrant9 dated April 2?, 1@?? and Att* Rico C Do'in(oHs affidavit of Dece'.er 1&, 1@?$ 0oreover, an eIclusive ri(ht to distri.ute a product or the ownership of such eIclusive ri(ht does not conclusivel* prove the act of doin( .usiness nor esta.lish the presu'ption of doin( .usiness
[?] [@]

The Corporation Code providesA Se!. 155. Doing business $ithout a license. S @o foreign !orpora"ion "ransa!"ing business in "he &hilippines #i"hou" a li!ense. or i"s su!!essors or assigns. shall be permi""ed "o main"ain or in"er$ene in any a!"ion. sui" or pro!eeding in any !our" or adminis"ra"i$e agen!y of "he &hilippines* bu" su!h !orpora"ion may be sued or pro!eeded agains" before &hilippine !our"s or adminis"ra"i$e "ribunals on any $alid !ause of a!"ion re!ogni;ed under &hilippine la#s. The o.tain'ent of a license prescri.ed .* !ection 12= of the Corporation Code is not a condition precedent to the 'aintenance of an* 4ind of action in "hilippine courts .* a forei(n corporation Gowever, under the afore2uoted provision, no forei(n corporation shall .e per'itted to transact .usiness in the

"hilippines, as this phrase is understood under the Corporation Code, unless it shall have the license re2uired .* law, and until it co'plies with the law in transactin( .usiness here, it shall not .e per'itted to 'aintain an* suit in local courts As thus interpreted, an* forei(n corporation not doin( .usiness in the "hilippines 'a* 'aintain an action in our courts upon an* cause of action, provided that the su.Dect 'atter and the defendant are within the Durisdiction of the court ;t is not the a.sence of the prescri.ed license .ut 6doin( .usiness9 in the "hilippines without such license which de.ars the forei(n corporation fro' access to our courts ;n other words, althou(h a forei(n corporation is without license to transact .usiness in the "hilippines, it does not follow that it has no capacit* to .rin( an action !uch license is not necessar* if it is not en(a(ed in .usiness in the "hilippines
[1%] [11]

!tatutor* provisions in 'an* Durisdictions are deter'inative of what constitutes 6doin( .usiness9 or 6transactin( .usiness9 within that foru', in which case said provisions are controllin( there ;n others where no such definition or 2ualification is laid down re(ardin( acts or transactions fallin( within its purview, the 2uestion rests pri'aril* on facts and intent ;t is thus held that all the co'.ined acts of a forei(n corporation in the !tate 'ust .e considered, and ever* circu'stance is 'aterial which indicates a purpose on the part of the corporation to en(a(e in so'e part of its re(ular .usiness in the !tate
[12]

#o (eneral rule or (overnin( principles can .e laid down as to what constitutes 6doin(9 or 6en(a(in( in9 or 6transactin(9 .usiness 8ach case 'ust .e Dud(ed in the li(ht of its own peculiar environ'ental circu'stances The true tests, however, see' to .e whether the forei(n corporation is continuin( the .od* or su.stance of the .usiness or enterprise for which it was or(ani>ed or whether it has su.stantiall* retired fro' it and turned it over to another
[1+] [1&]

As a (eneral proposition upon which 'an* authorities a(ree in principle, su.Dect to such 'odifications as 'a* .e necessar* in view of the particular issue or of the ter's of the statute involved, it is reco(ni>ed that a forei(n corporation is 6doin(,9 6transactin(,9 6en(a(in( in,9 or 6carr*in( on9 .usiness in the !tate when, and ordinaril* onl* when, it has entered the !tate .* its a(ents and is there en(a(ed in carr*in( on and transactin( throu(h the' so'e su.stantial part of its ordinar* or custo'ar* .usiness, usuall* continuous in the sense that it 'a* .e distin(uished fro' 'erel* casual, sporadic, or occasional transactions and isolated acts
[1=]

The Corporation Code does not itself define or cate(ori>e what acts constitute doin( or transactin( .usiness in the "hilippines )urisprudence has, however, held that the ter' i'plies a continuit* of co''ercial dealin(s

and arran(e'ents, and conte'plates, to that eItent, the perfor'ance of acts or wor4s or the eIercise of so'e of the functions nor'all* incident to or in pro(ressive prosecution of the purpose and su.Dect of its or(ani>ation
[1E]

This traditional case law definition has evolved into a statutor* definition, havin( .een adopted with so'e 2ualifications in various pieces of le(islation in our Durisdiction -or instance, Repu.lic Act #o =&== providesA
[1$]

S6C %=@ 1. Definitions and scope of this Act. S ,1( / / /* and "he phrase 0doing business3 shall in!lude soli!i"ing orders. pur!hases. ser$i!e !on"ra!"s. opening offi!es. #he"her !alled 0liaison3 offi!es or bran!hes* appoin"ing represen"a"i$es or dis"ribu"ors #ho are domi!iled in "he &hilippines or #ho in any !alendar year s"ay in "he &hilippines for a period or periods "o"alling one hundred eigh"y days or more* par"i!ipa"ing in "he managemen". super$ision or !on"rol of any domes"i! business firm. en"i"y or !orpora"ion in "he &hilippines* and any o"her a!" or a!"s "ha" imply a !on"inui"y of !ommer!ial dealings or arrangemen"s. and !on"empla"e "o "ha" e/"en" "he performan!e of a!"s or #or2s. or "he e/er!ise of some of "he fun!"ions normally in!iden" "o. and inEprogressi$e prose!u"ion of. !ommer!ial gain or of "he purpose and ob)e!" of "he business organi;a"ion. "residential Decree #o 1$?@, in Article E= thereof, defines 6doin( .usiness9 to include solicitin( orders, purchases, service contracts, openin( offices, whether called 6liaison9 offices or .ranchesB appointin( representatives or distri.utors who are do'iciled in the "hilippines or who in an* calendar *ear sta* in the "hilippines for a period or periods totallin( one hundred ei(ht* da*s or 'oreB participatin( in the 'ana(e'ent, supervision or control of an* do'estic .usiness fir', entit* or corporation in the "hilippines, and an* other act or acts that i'pl* a continuit* of co''ercial dealin(s or arran(e'ents and conte'plate to that eItent the perfor'ance of acts or wor4s, or the eIercise of so'e of the functions nor'all* incident to, and in pro(ressive prosecution of, co''ercial (ain or of the purpose and o.Dect of the .usiness or(ani>ation
[1?]

The i'ple'entin( rules and re(ulations of said presidential decree conclude the enu'eration of acts constitutin( 6doin( .usiness9 with a catch-all definition, thusA Se!. 1,g(. RDoing BusinessH shall be any a!" or !ombina"ion of a!"s enumera"ed in 8r"i!le GF of "he Code. %n par"i!ular Rdoing businessH in!ludes' III III III

,10( 8ny o"her a!" or a!"s #hi!h imply a !on"inui"y of !ommer!ial dealings or arrangemen"s. and !on"empla"e "o "ha" e/"en" "he performan!e of a!"s or #or2s. or "he e/er!ise of some of "he fun!"ions normally in!iden" "o. or in "he progressi$e prose!u"ion of. !ommer!ial gain or of "he purpose and ob)e!" of "he business organi;a"ion. -inall*, Repu.lic Act #o $%&2 e'.odies such concept in this wiseA
[1@]

S6C. 5. Definitions. S 8s used in "his 8!"' III III III

,d( "he phrase 0doing business shall in!lude soli!i"ing orders. ser$i!e !on"ra!"s. opening offi!es. #he"her !alled RliaisonH offi!es or bran!hes* appoin"ing represen"a"i$es or dis"ribu"ors domi!iled in "he &hilippines or #ho in any !alendar year s"ay in "he !oun"ry for a period or periods "o"alling one hundred eigh",y( ,180( days or more* par"i!ipa"ing in "he managemen". super$ision or !on"rol of any domes"i! business. firm. en"i"y or !orpora"ion in "he &hilippines* and any o"her a!" or a!"s "ha" imply a !on"inui"y of !ommer!ial dealings or arrangemen"s. and !on"empla"e "o "ha" e/"en" "he performan!e of a!"s or #or2s. or "he e/er!ise of some of "he fun!"ions normally in!iden" "o. and in progressi$e prose!u"ion of. !ommer!ial gain or of "he purpose and ob)e!" of "he business organi;a"ion' /ro*ided. ho$e*er. ha" "he phrase 0doing business3 shall no" be deemed "o in!lude mere in$es"men" as a shareholder by a foreign en"i"y in domes"i! !orpora"ions duly regis"ered "o do business. andOor "he e/er!ise of righ"s as su!h in$es"ors* nor ha$ing a nominee dire!"or or offi!er "o represen" i"s in"eres"s in su!h !orpora"ion* nor appoin"ing a represen"a"i$e or dis"ribu"or domi!iled in "he &hilippines #hi!h "ransa!"s business in i"s o#n name and for i"s o#n a!!oun". 1ased on Article 1++ of the Corporation Code and (au(ed .* such statutor* standards, petitioners are not .arred fro' 'aintainin( the present action There is no showin( that, under our statutor* or case law, petitioners are doin(, transactin(, en(a(in( in or carr*in( on .usiness in the "hilippines as would re2uire o.tention of a license .efore the* can see4 redress fro' our courts #o evidence has .een offered to show that petitioners have perfor'ed an* of the enu'erated acts or an* other specific act indicative of an intention to conduct or transact .usiness in the "hilippines Accordin(l*, the certification issued .* the !ecurities and 8Ichan(e Co''ission statin( that its records do not show the re(istration of petitioner fil' co'panies either as corporations or partnerships or that the* have .een licensed to transact .usiness in the "hilippines, while undenia.l* true, is of no
[2%]

conse2uence to petitionersH ri(ht to .rin( action in the "hilippines Ceril*, no record of such re(istration .* petitioners can .e eIpected to .e found for, as aforestated, said forei(n fil' corporations do not transact or do .usiness in the "hilippines and, therefore, do not need to .e licensed in order to ta4e recourse to our courts Althou(h !ection 1(() of the ;'ple'entin( Rules and Re(ulations of the /'ni.us ;nvest'ents Code lists, a'on( others N ,1( Soli!i"ing orders. pur!hases ,sales( or ser$i!e !on"ra!"s. Con!re"e and spe!ifi! soli!i"a"ions by a foreign firm. or by an agen" of su!h foreign firm. no" a!"ing independen"ly of "he foreign firm amoun"ing "o nego"ia"ions or fi/ing of "he "erms and !ondi"ions of sales or ser$i!e !on"ra!"s. regardless of #here "he !on"ra!"s are a!"ually redu!ed "o #ri"ing. shall !ons"i"u"e doing business e$en if "he en"erprise has no offi!e or fi/ed pla!e of business in "he &hilippines. he arrangemen"s agreed upon as "o manner. "ime and "erms of deli$ery of "he goods or "he "ransfer of "i"le "here"o is imma"erial. 8 foreign firm #hi!h does business "hrough "he middlemen a!"ing in "heir o#n names. su!h as inden"ors. !ommer!ial bro2ers or !ommission mer!han"s. shall no" be deemed doing business in "he &hilippines. Bu" su!h inden"ors. !ommer!ial bro2ers or !ommission mer!han"s shall be "he ones deemed "o be doing business in "he &hilippines. ,2( 8ppoin"ing a represen"a"i$e or dis"ribu"or #ho is domi!iled in "he &hilippines. unless said represen"a"i$e or dis"ribu"or has an independen" s"a"us. i.e.. i" "ransa!"s business in i"s name and for i"s o#n a!!oun". and no" in "he name or for "he a!!oun" of a prin!ipal. hus. #here a foreign firm is represen"ed in "he &hilippines by a person or lo!al !ompany #hi!h does no" a!" in i"s name bu" in "he name of "he foreign firm. "he la""er is doing business in "he &hilippines. as acts constitutive of 6doin( .usiness,9 the fact that petitioners are ad'ittedl* cop*ri(ht owners or owners of eIclusive distri.ution ri(hts in the "hilippines of 'otion pictures or fil's does not convert such ownership into an indiciu' of doin( .usiness which would re2uire the' to o.tain a license .efore the* can sue upon a cause of action in local courts #either is the appoint'ent of Att* Rico C Do'in(o as attorne*-in-fact of petitioners, with eIpress authorit* pursuant to a special power of attorne*, inter alia N o lay !riminal !omplain"s #i"h "he appropria"e au"hori"ies and "o pro$ide e$iden!e in suppor" of bo"h !i$il and !riminal pro!eedings agains" any person or persons in$ol$ed in "he !riminal infringemen" of !opyrigh". or !on!erning "he unau"hori;ed impor"a"ion. dupli!a"ion. e/hibi"ion or dis"ribu"ion of any !inema"ographi! #or2,s( S films or

$ideo !asse""es S of #hi!h / / / is "he o#ner of !opyrigh" or "he o#ner of e/!lusi$e righ"s of dis"ribu"ion in "he &hilippines pursuan" "o any agreemen",s( be"#een / / / and "he respe!"i$e o#ners of !opyrigh" in su!h !inema"ographi! #or2,s(. "o ini"ia"e and prose!u"e on behalf of / / / !riminal or !i$il a!"ions in "he &hilippines agains" any person or persons unla#fully dis"ribu"ing. e/hibi"ing. selling or offering for sale any films or $ideo !asse""es of #hi!h / / / is "he o#ner of !opyrigh" or "he o#ner of e/!lusi$e righ"s of dis"ribu"ion in "he &hilippines pursuan" "o any agreemen",s( be"#een / / / and "he respe!"i$e o#ners of !opyrigh" in su!h #or2s.
J21K

tanta'ount to doin( .usiness in the "hilippines 3e fail to see how eIercisin( oneHs le(al and propert* ri(hts and ta4in( steps for the vi(ilant protection of said ri(hts, particularl* the appoint'ent of an attorne*-in-fact, can .e dee'ed .* and of the'selves to .e doin( .usiness here As a (eneral rule, a forei(n corporation will not .e re(arded as doin( .usiness in the !tate si'pl* .ecause it enters into contracts with residents of the !tate, where such contracts are consu''ated outside the !tate ;n fact, a view is ta4en that a forei(n corporation is not doin( .usiness in the state 'erel* .ecause sales of its product are 'ade there or other .usiness furtherin( its interests is transacted there .* an alle(ed a(ent, whether a corporation or a natural person, where such activities are not under the direction and control of the forei(n corporation .ut are en(a(ed in .* the alle(ed a(ent as an independent .usiness
[22] [2+]

;t is (enerall* held that sales 'ade to custo'ers in the !tate .* an independent dealer who has purchased and o.tained title fro' the corporation to the products sold are not a doin( of .usiness .* the corporation 7i4ewise, a forei(n corporation which sells its products to persons st*led 6distri.utin( a(ents9 in the !tate, for distri.ution .* the', is not doin( .usiness in the !tate so as to render it su.Dect to service of process therein, where the contract with these purchasers is that the* shall .u* eIclusivel* fro' the forei(n corporation such (oods as it 'anufactures and shall sell the' at trade prices esta.lished .* it
[2&] [2=]

;t has 'oreover .een held that the act of a forei(n corporation in en(a(in( an attorne* to represent it in a -ederal court sittin( in a particular !tate is not doin( .usiness within the scope of the 'ini'u' contact test 3ith 'uch 'ore reason should this doctrine appl* to the 'ere retainer of Att* Do'in(o for le(al protection a(ainst contin(ent acts of intellectual pirac*
[2E]

;n accordance with the rule that 6doin( .usiness9 i'ports onl* acts in furtherance of the purposes for which a forei(n corporation was or(ani>ed, it is held that the 'ere institution and prosecution or defense of a suit,

particularl* if the transaction which is the .asis of the suit too4 place out of the !tate, do not a'ount to the doin( of .usiness in the !tate The institution of a suit or the re'oval thereof is neither the 'a4in( of a contract nor the doin( of .usiness within a constitutional provision placin( forei(n corporations licensed to do .usiness in the !tate under the sa'e re(ulations, li'itations and lia.ilities with respect to such acts as do'estic corporations 0erel* en(a(in( in liti(ation has .een considered as not a sufficient 'ini'u' contact to warrant the eIercise of Durisdiction over a forei(n corporation
[2$]

As a consideration aside, we have perforce to co''ent on private respondentsH .asis for ar(uin( that petitioners are .arred fro' 'aintainin( suit in the "hilippines -or alle(edl* .ein( forei(n corporations doin( .usiness in the "hilippines without a license, private respondents repeatedl* 'aintain in all their pleadin(s that petitioners have there.* no legal personalit* to .rin( an action .efore "hilippine courts
[2?]

A'on( the (rounds for a 'otion to dis'iss under the Rules of Court are lac4 of le(al capacit* to sue and that the co'plaint states no cause of action 7ac4 of le(al capacit* to sue 'eans that the plaintiff is not in the eIercise of his civil ri(hts, or does not have the necessar* 2ualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or representation he clai's /n the other hand, a case is dis'issi.le for lac4 of personalit* to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real part*-in-interest, hence (rounded on failure to state a cause of action The ter' 6lac4 of capacit* to sue9 should not .e confused with the ter' 6lac4 of personalit* to sue 9 3hile the for'er refers to a plaintiffHs (eneral disa.ilit* to sue, such as on account of 'inorit*, insanit*, inco'petence, lac4 of Duridical personalit* or an* other (eneral dis2ualifications of a part*, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real part*- in-interest Correspondin(l*, the first can .e a (round for a 'otion to dis'iss .ased on the (round of lac4 of le(al capacit* to sueB whereas the second can .e used as a (round for a 'otion to dis'iss .ased on the fact that the co'plaint, on the face thereof, evidentl* states no cause of action
[2@] [+%] [+1] [+2] [++] [+&]

Appl*in( the a.ove discussion to the instant petition, the (round availa.le for .arrin( recourse to our courts .* an unlicensed forei(n corporation doin( or transactin( .usiness in the "hilippines should properl* .e 6lac4 of capacit* to sue,9 not 6lac4 of personalit* to sue 9 Certainl*, a corporation whose le(al ri(hts have .een violated is undenia.l* such, if not the onl*, real part*-ininterest to .rin( suit thereon althou(h, for failure to co'pl* with the licensin( re2uire'ent, it is not capacitated to 'aintain an* suit .efore our courts

7astl*, on this point, we reiterate this CourtHs reDection of the co''on procedural tactics of errin( local co'panies which, when sued .* unlicensed forei(n corporations not en(a(ed in .usiness in the "hilippines, invo4e the latterHs supposed lac4 of capacit* to sue The doctrine of lac4 of capacit* to sue .ased on failure to first ac2uire a local license is .ased on considerations of pu.lic polic* ;t was never intended to favor nor insulate fro' suit unscrupulous esta.lish'ents or nationals in case of .reach of valid o.li(ations or violations of le(al ri(hts of unsuspectin( forei(n fir's or entities si'pl* .ecause the* are not licensed to do .usiness in the countr*
[+=]

II

3e now proceed to the 'ain issue of the retroactive application to the present controvers* of the rulin( in 78th Centur* 1ox 1ilm Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., pro'ul(ated on Au(ust 1@, 1@??, that for the deter'ination of pro.a.le cause to support the issuance of a search warrant in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases involvin( video(ra's, the production of the 'aster tape for co'parison with the alle(edl* pirated copies is necessar*
[+E]

"etitioners assert that the issuance of a search warrant is addressed to the discretion of the court su.Dect to the deter'ination of pro.a.le cause in accordance with the procedure prescri.ed therefor under !ections + and & of Rule 12E As of the ti'e of the application for the search warrant in 2uestion, the controllin( criterion for the findin( of pro.a.le cause was that enunciated in 3urgos vs. Chief of Staff statin( thatA
[+$]

"ro.a.le cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circu'stances which would lead a reasona.l* discrete and prudent 'an to .elieve that an offense has .een co''itted and that the o.Dects sou(ht in connection with the offense are in the place sou(ht to .e searched Accordin( to petitioners, after co'pl*in( with what the law then re2uired, the lower court deter'ined that there was pro.a.le cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and which deter'ination in fact led to the issuance and service on Dece'.er 1&, 1@?$ of !earch 3arrant #o ?$-%=+ ;t is further ar(ued that an* search warrant so issued in accordance with all applica.le le(al re2uire'ents is valid, for the lower court could not possi.l* have .een eIpected to appl*, as the .asis for a findin( of pro.a.le cause for the issuance of a search warrant in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases involvin( video(ra's, a pronounce'ent which was not eIistent at the ti'e of such deter'ination, on Dece'.er 1&, 1@?$, that is, the doctrine in the 78th Centur* 1ox case that was pro'ul(ated onl* on Au(ust 1@, 1@??, or over ei(ht 'onths later

"rivate respondents predicta.l* ar(ue in support of the rulin( of the Court of Appeals sustainin( the 2uashal of the search warrant .* the lower court on the stren(th of that 78th Centur* 1ox rulin( which, the* clai', (oes into the ver* essence of pro.a.le cause At the ti'e of the issuance of the search warrant involved here, althou(h the 78th Centur* 1oxcase had not *et .een decided, !ection 2, Article ;;; of the Constitution and !ection +, Rule 12E of the 1@?= Rules on Cri'inal "rocedure e'.odied the prevailin( and (overnin( law on the 'atter The rulin( in 78th Centur* 1ox was 'erel* an application of the law on pro.a.le cause Gence, the* posit that there was no law that was retrospectivel* applied, since the law had .een there all alon( To refrain fro' appl*in( the 78th Centur* 1ox rulin(, which had supervened as a doctrine pro'ul(ated at the ti'e of the resolution of private respondentsH 'otion for reconsideration see4in( the 2uashal of the search warrant for failure of the trial court to re2uire presentation of the 'aster tapes prior to the issuance of the search warrant, would have constituted (rave a.use of discretion
[+?]

Respondent court upheld the retroactive application of the 78th Centur* 1ox rulin( .* the trial court in resolvin( petitionersH 'otion for reconsideration in favor of the 2uashal of the search warrant, on this renovated thesisA 8nd #he"her "his do!"rine should apply re"roa!"i$ely. i" mus" be no"ed "ha" in "he 20"h Cen"ury >o/ !ase. "he lo#er !our" 1uashed "he earlier sear!h #arran" i" issued. =n certiorari. "he Supreme Cour" affirmed "he 1uashal on "he ground among o"hers "ha" "he mas"er "apes or !opyrigh"ed films #ere no" presen"ed for !omparison #i"h "he pur!hased e$iden!e of "he $ideo "apes "o de"ermine #he"her "he la""er is an unau"hori;ed reprodu!"ion of "he former. %f "he lo#er !our" in "he Cen"ury >o/ !ase did no" 1uash "he #arran". i" is =ur $ie# "ha" "he Supreme Cour" #ould ha$e in$alida"ed "he #arran" )us" "he same !onsidering "he $ery s"ri!" re1uiremen" se" by "he Supreme Cour" for "he de"ermina"ion of Rprobable !auseH in !opyrigh" infringemen" !ases as enun!ia"ed in "his 20"h Cen"ury >o/ !ase. his is so be!ause. as #as s"a"ed by "he Supreme Cour" in "he said !ase. "he mas"er "apes and "he pira"ed "apes mus" be presen"ed for co.parison to satisfy the re#uire.ent of 9probable cause.) So i" goes ba!2 "o "he $ery e/is"en!e of probable !ause. / / /
J59K

0indful as we are of the ra'ifications of the doctrine of stare decisis and the rudi'ents of fair pla*, it is our considered view that the 78th Centur* 1ox rulin( cannot .e retroactivel* applied to the instant case to Dustif* the 2uashal of !earch 3arrant #o ?$-%=+ Gerein petitionersH consistent position that the order of the lower court of !epte'.er =, 1@?? den*in( therein

defendantsH 'otion to lift the order of search warrant was properl* issued, there havin( .een satisfactor* co'pliance with the then prevailin( standards under the law for deter'ination of pro.a.le cause, is indeed well ta4en The lower court could not possi.l* have eIpected 'ore evidence fro' petitioners in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and Durisprudence, then existing and !udiciall* accepted, re2uired with respect to the findin( of pro.a.le cause Article & of the Civil Code provides that 6(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrar* is provided Correlativel*, Article ? of the sa'e Code declares that 6(D)udicial decisions appl*in( the laws or the Constitution shall for' part of the le(al s*ste' of the "hilippines 9 )urisprudence, in our s*ste' of (overn'ent, cannot .e considered as an independent source of lawB it cannot create law 3hile it is true that Dudicial decisions which appl* or interpret the Constitution or the laws are part of the le(al s*ste' of the "hilippines, still the* are not laws )udicial decisions, thou(h not laws, are nonetheless evidence of what the laws 'ean, and it is for this reason that the* are part of the le(al s*ste' of the "hilippines )udicial decisions of the !upre'e Court assu'e the sa'e authorit* as the statute itself
[&%] [&1] [&2]

;nterpretin( the afore2uoted correlated provisions of the Civil Code and in li(ht of the a.ove dis2uisition, this Court e'phaticall* declared in Co vs. Court of Appeals, et al that the principle of prospectivit* applies not onl* to ori(inal a'endator* statutes and ad'inistrative rulin(s and circulars, .ut also, and properl* so, to Dudicial decisions /ur holdin( in the earlier case of %eople vs. "u2inal echoes the rationale for this Dudicial declaration, vi+ A
[&+] [&&]

De!isions of "his Cour". al"hough in "hemsel$es no" la#s. are ne$er"heless e$iden!e of #ha" "he la#s mean. and "his is "he reason #hy under 8r"i!le 8 of "he @e# Ci$il Code. 0Ludi!ial de!isions applying or in"erpre"ing "he la#s or "he Cons"i"u"ion shall form par" of "he legal sys"em.3 he in"erpre"a"ion upon a la# by "his Cour" !ons"i"u"es. in a #ay. a par" of "he la# as of "he da"e "ha" "he la# #as originally passed. sin!e "his Cour"Hs !ons"ru!"ion merely es"ablishes "he !on"emporaneous legisla"i$e in"en" "ha" "he la# "hus !ons"rued in"ends "o effe!"ua"e. he se""led rule suppor"ed by numerous au"hori"ies is a res"a"emen" of "he legal ma/im 0 legis interpretation legis *i. obtinet3 S "he in"erpre"a"ion pla!ed upon "he #ri""en la# by a !ompe"en" !our" has "he for!e of la#. / / /. bu" #hen a do!"rine of "his Cour" is o$erruled and a differen" $ie# is adop"ed. the ne$ doctrine should be applied prospecti*ely0 and should not apply to parties $ho had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof . / / /. ,S"ress supplied(.

This was forcefull* reiterated in Spouses 3en+onan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., where the Court eIpoundedA
[&=]

/ / /. Bu" #hile our de!isions form par" of "he la# of "he land. "hey are also sub)e!" "o 8r"i!le : of "he Ci$il Code #hi!h pro$ides "ha" 0la#s shall ha$e no re"roa!"i$e effe!" unless "he !on"rary is pro$ided.3 his is e/pressed in "he familiar legal ma/imum le- prospicit0 non respicit. "he la# loo2s for#ard no" ba!2#ard. he ra"ionale agains" re"roa!"i$i"y is easy "o per!ei$e. he re"roa!"i$e appli!a"ion of a la# usually di$es"s righ"s "ha" ha$e already be!ome $es"ed or impairs "he obliga"ions of !on"ra!" and hen!e. is un!ons"i"u"ional ,>ran!is!o *. Cer"e;a. 5 SC?8 FGF J19G1K(. he same !onsidera"ion underlies our rulings gi$ing only prospe!"i$e effe!" "o de!isions enun!ia"ing ne# do!"rines. / / /. The reasonin( .ehind Senarillos vs. 9ermosisima that Dudicial interpretation of a statute constitutes part of the law as of the date it was ori(inall* passed, since the CourtHs construction 'erel* esta.lishes the conte'poraneous le(islative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect, is all too fa'iliar !uch Dudicial doctrine does not a'ount to the passa(e of a new law .ut consists 'erel* of a construction or interpretation of a preeIistin( one, and that is precisel* the situation o.tainin( in this case
[&E]

;t is conse2uentl* clear that a Dudicial interpretation .eco'es a part of the law as of the date that law was ori(inall* passed, su.Dect onl* to the 2ualification that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, and 'ore so when there is a reversal thereof, the new doctrine should .e applied prospectivel* and should not appl* to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in (ood faith To hold otherwise would .e to deprive the law of its 2ualit* of fairness and Dustice then, if there is no reco(nition of what had transpired prior to such adDudication
[&$] [&?]

There is 'erit in petitionersH i'passioned and well-founded ar(u'entationA he !ase of 20"h Cen"ury >o/ >ilm Corpora"ion *s. Cour" of 8ppeals. e" al.. 1G: SC?8 GFF ,8ugus" 19. 1988( ,hereinaf"er 20"h Cen"ury >o/( #as ine/is"en" in De!ember of 1984 #hen Sear!h <arran" 84E0F5 #as issued by "he lo#er !our". -en!e. i" boggles "he imagina"ion ho# "he lo#er !our" !ould be e/pe!"ed "o apply "he formula"ion of 20"h Cen"ury >o/ in finding probable !ause #hen "he formula"ion #as ye" nonEe/is"en". III III III

%n shor". "he lo#er !our" #as !on$in!ed at that ti.e af"er !ondu!"ing sear!hing e/amina"ion 1ues"ions of "he appli!an" and his #i"nesses "ha" 0an offense had been

!ommi""ed and "ha" "he ob)e!"s sough" in !onne!"ion #i"h "he offense ,#ere( in "he pla!e sough" "o be sear!hed3 ,Burgos *. Chief of S"aff. e" al.. 155 SC?8 800(. %" is indispu"able. "herefore. "ha" a" "he "ime of "he appli!a"ion. or on De!ember 1:. 1984. "he lo#er !our" did no" !ommi" any error nor did i" fail "o !omply #i"h any legal re1uiremen" for "he $alid issuan!e of sear!h #arran". / / /. ,<(e belie$e "ha" "he lo#er !our" should be !onsidered as ha$ing follo#ed "he re1uiremen"s of "he la# in issuing Sear!h <arran" @o. 84E0F5. he sear!h #arran" is "herefore $alid and binding. %" mus" be no"ed "ha" no#here is i" found in "he allega"ions of "he ?esponden"s "ha" "he lo#er !our" failed "o apply "he la# as then interpreted in 1" 7. -en!e. #e find i" absurd "ha" i" is ,si!( should be seen o"her#ise. be!ause i" is simply impossible "o ha$e re1uired "he lo#er !our" "o apply a formula"ion #hi!h #ill only be defined si/ mon"hs la"er. >ur"hermore. i" is un)us" and unfair "o re1uire !omplian!e #i"h legal andOor do!"rinal re1uiremen"s #hi!h are ine/is"en" a" "he "ime "hey #ere supposed "o ha$e been !omplied #i"h. III III III

/ / /. %f "he lo#er !our"Hs re$ersal #ill be sus"ained. #ha" en!ouragemen" !an be gi$en "o !our"s and li"igan"s "o respe!" "he la# and rules if "hey !an e/pe!" #i"h reasonable !er"ain"y "ha" upon "he passage of a ne# rule. "heir !ondu!" !an s"ill be open "o 1ues"ion9 his !er"ainly breeds ins"abili"y in our sys"em of dispensing )us"i!e. >or &e"i"ioners #ho "oo2 spe!ial effor" "o redress "heir grie$an!es and "o pro"e!" "heir proper"y righ"s by resor"ing "o "he remedies pro$ided by "he la#. i" is mos" unfair "ha" feal"y "o "he rules and pro!edures "hen ob"aining #ould bear bu" frui"s of in)us"i!e.
J:9K

3ithal, even the proposition that the prospectivit* of Dudicial decisions i'ports application thereof not onl* to future cases .ut also to cases still on(oin( or not *et final when the decision was pro'ul(ated, should not .e countenanced in the Dural sphere on account of its inevita.l* unsettlin( repercussions 0ore to the point, it is felt that the reasona.leness of the added re2uire'ent in 78th Centur* 1ox callin( for the production of the 'aster tapes of the cop*ri(hted fil's for deter'ination of pro.a.le cause in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases needs revisitin( and clarification ;t will .e recalled that the 78th Centur* 1ox case arose fro' search warrant proceedin(s in anticipation of the filin( of a case for the unauthori>ed sale or rentin( out of cop*ri(hted fil's in videotape for'at in violation of "residential Decree #o &@ ;t revolved around the 'eanin( of pro.a.le

cause within the conteIt of the constitutional provision a(ainst ille(al searches and sei>ures, as applied to cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases involvin( videotapes Therein it was ruled that N he presen"a"ion of mas"er "apes of "he !opyrigh"ed films from #hi!h "he pira"ed films #ere allegedly !opied. #as ne!essary for "he $alidi"y of sear!h #arran"s agains" "hose #ho ha$e in "heir possession "he pira"ed films. he pe"i"ionerHs argumen" "o "he effe!" "ha" "he presen"a"ion of "he mas"er "apes a" "he "ime of appli!a"ion may no" be ne!essary as "hese #ould be merely e$iden"iary in na"ure and no" de"ermina"i$e of #he"her or no" a probable !ause e/is"s "o )us"ify "he issuan!e of "he sear!h #arran"s is no" meri"orious. he !our" !anno" presume "ha" dupli!a"e or !opied "apes #ere ne!essarily reprodu!ed from mas"er "apes "ha" i" o#ns. he appli!a"ion for sear!h #arran"s #as dire!"ed agains" $ideo "ape ou"le"s #hi!h allegedly #ere engaged in "he unau"hori;ed sale and ren"ing ou" of !opyrigh"ed films belonging "o "he pe"i"ioner pursuan" "o &.D. :9. he essen!e of a !opyrigh" infringemen" is "he similari"y or a" leas" subs"an"ial similari"y of "he purpor"ed pira"ed #or2s "o "he !opyrigh"ed #or2. -en!e. "he appli!an" mus" presen" "o "he !our" "he !opyrigh"ed films "o !ompare "hem #i"h "he pur!hased e$iden!e of "he $ideo "apes allegedly pira"ed "o de"ermine #he"her "he la""er is an unau"hori;ed reprodu!"ion of "he former. his lin2age of "he !opyrigh"ed films "o "he pira"ed films mus" be es"ablished "o sa"isfy "he re1uiremen"s of probable !ause. Mere allega"ions as "o "he e/is"en!e of "he !opyrigh"ed films !anno" ser$e as basis for "he issuan!e of a sear!h #arran". -or a closer and 'ore perspicuous appreciation of the factual antecedents of 78th Centur* 1ox, the pertinent portions of the decision therein are 2uoted hereunder, to witA %n "he ins"an" !ase. "he lo#er !our" lif"ed "he "hree 1ues"ioned sear!h #arran"s agains" "he pri$a"e responden"s on "he ground "ha" i" a!"ed on "he appli!a"ion for "he issuan!e of "he said sear!h #arran"s and gran"ed i" on "he misrepresen"a"ions of appli!an" @B% and i"s #i"nesses "ha" infringemen" of !opyrigh" or a pira!y of a par"i!ular film ha$e been !ommi""ed. hus "he lo#er !our" s"a"ed in i"s 1ues"ioned order da"ed Lanuary 2. 198G' 08!!ording "o "he mo$an". all "hree #i"nesses during "he pro!eedings in "he appli!a"ion for "he "hree sear!h #arran"s "es"ified of "heir o#n personal 2no#ledge. 4et0 Atty. Albino Reyes of the :;& stated that the counsel or representati*e of the <$entieth Century ,o- Corporation $ill testify on the *ideo

cassettes that $ere pirated0 so that he did not ha*e personal kno$ledge of the alleged piracy. <he $itness ;acani also said that the *ideo cassettes $ere pirated $ithout stating the .anner it $as pirated and that it $as Atty. Do.ingo that has kno$ledge of that fact. 0=n "he par" of 8""y. Domingo. he said "ha" "he reE"aping of "he allegedly pira"ed "apes #as from mas"er "apes allegedly belonging "o "he #en"ie"h Cen"ury >o/. be!ause. a!!ording "o him i" is of his personal 2no#ledge. 08" "he hearing of "he Mo"ion for ?e!onsidera"ion. Senior @B% 8gen" 8""y. 8lbino ?eyes "es"ified "ha" $hen the co.plaint for infringe.ent $as brought to the :;&0 the .aster tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes $ere sho$n to hi. and he .ade co.parisons of the tapes $ith those purchased by their .an ;acani. Why the .aster tapes or at least the fil. reels of the allegedly pirated tapes $ere not sho$n to the Court during the application gi*es so.e .isgi*ings as to the truth of that bare state.ent of the :;& agent on the $itness stand . 08gain as "he appli!a"ion and sear!h pro!eedings is a prelude "o "he filing of !riminal !ases under &.D. :9. "he !opyrigh" infringemen" la#. and al"hough #ha" is re1uired for "he issuan!e "hereof is merely "he presen!e of probable !ause. "ha" probable !ause mus" be sa"isfa!"ory "o "he Cour". for i" is a "imeEhonored pre!ep" "ha" pro!eedings "o pu" a man "o "as2 as an offender under our la#s should be in"erpre"ed in strictissi.i 2uris agains" "he go$ernmen" and liberally in fa$or of "he alleged offender. III III III

0 his do!"rine has ne$er been o$er"urned. and as a ma""er of fa!" i" had been enshrined in "he Bill of ?igh"s in our 1945 Cons"i"u"ion. 0So that lacking in persuasi*e effect0 the allegation that .aster tapes $ere *ie$ed by the :;& and $ere co.pared to the purchased and sei=ed *ideo tapes fro. the respondents) establish.ents0 it should be dis.issed as not supported by co.petent e*idence and for that .atter the probable cause ho*ers in that grey debatable t$ilight =one bet$een black and $hite resol*able in fa*or of respondents herein. 0Bu" "he glaring fa!" is "ha" RCo!oon.H "he firs" $ideo "ape men"ioned in "he sear!h #arran". #as no" e$en duly regis"ered or !opyrigh"ed in "he &hilippines. ,8nne/ C of =pposi"ion. p. 1F2. re!ord.( So "ha" la!2ing in "he re1uisi"e presen"a"ion "o "he Cour" of an alleged mas"er "ape for purposes of !omparison #i"h "he pur!hased e$iden!e of "he $ideo "apes allegedly pira"ed and "hose sei;ed from responden"s. "here #as no #ay

"o de"ermine #he"her "here really #as pira!y. or !opying of "he film of "he !omplainan" #en"ie"h Cen"ury >o/.3 III III III

<he lo$er court0 therefore0 lifted the three 738 #uestioned search $arrants in the absence of probable cause that the pri*ate respondents *iolated /.D. >". As found by the court0 the :;& agents $ho acted as $itnesses did not ha*e personal kno$ledge of the sub2ect .atter of their testi.ony $hich $as the alleged co..ission of the offense by the pri*ate respondents. =nly "he pe"i"ionerHs !ounsel #ho #as also a #i"ness during "he appli!a"ion for "he issuan!e of "he sear!h #arran"s s"a"ed "ha" he had personal 2no#ledge "ha" "he !onfis!a"ed "apes o#ned by "he pri$a"e responden"s #ere pira"ed "apes "a2en from mas"er "apes belonging "o "he pe"i"ioner. -o#e$er. "he lo#er !our" did no" gi$e mu!h !reden!e "o his "es"imony in $ie# of "he fa!" "ha" "he mas"er "apes of "he allegedly pira"ed "apes #ere no" sho#n "o "he !our" during "he appli!a"ion3 ,%"ali!s ours(. The italici>ed passa(es readil* eIpose the reason wh* the trial court therein re2uired the presentation of the 'aster tapes of the alle(edl* pirated fil's in order to convince itself of the eIistence of pro.a.le cause under the factual 'ilieu peculiar to that case ;n the case at .ar, respondent appellate court itself o.servedA <e feel "ha" "he ra"ionale behind "he afore1uo"ed do!"rine is "ha" "he pira"ed !opies as #ell as "he mas"er "apes. unli2e "he o"her "ypes of personal proper"ies #hi!h may be sei;ed. $ere a*ailable for presentation to the court at the ti.e of the application for a search $arrant "o de"ermine "he e/is"en!e of "he lin2age of "he !opyrigh"ed films #i"h "he pira"ed ones. hus. "here is no reason no" "o presen" "hem ,%"ali!s supplied for emphasis(.
JF0K

;n fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case re(ardin( the necessit* for the presentation of the 'aster tapes of the cop*ri(hted fil's for the validit* of search warrants should at 'ost .e understood to 'erel* serve as a (uidepost in deter'inin( the eIistence of pro.a.le cause in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases /here there is dou2t as to the true nexus 2et/een the master tape and the pirated copies An o.Dective and careful readin( of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardl* intended to .e a sweepin( and infleIi.le re2uire'ent in all or si'ilar cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases "udicial dicta should alwa*s .e construed within the factual 'atriI of their parturition, otherwise a careless interpretation thereof could unfairl* fault the writer with the vice of overstate'ent and the reader with the fallac* of undue (enerali>ation

;n the case at .ar, #1; !enior A(ent 7auro C Re*es who filed the application for search warrant with the lower court followin( a for'al co'plaint lod(ed .* petitioners, Dud(in( fro' his affidavit and his deposition, did testif* on 'atters within his personal 4nowled(e .ased on said co'plaint of petitioners as well as his own investi(ation and surveillance of the private respondentsH video rental shop 7i4ewise, Att* Rico C Do'in(o, in his capacit* as attorne*-in-fact, stated in his affidavit and further eIpounded in his deposition that he personall* 4new of the fact that private respondents had never .een authori>ed .* his clients to reproduce, lease and possess for the purpose of sellin( an* of the cop*ri(hted fil's
[=1] [=2] [=+] [=&]

1oth testi'onies of A(ent Re*es and Att* Do'in(o were corro.orated .* Rene C 1alta>ar, a private researcher retained .* 0otion "ictures Association of A'erica, ;nc (0"AA, ;nc ), who was li4ewise presented as a witness durin( the search warrant proceedin(s The records clearl* reflect that the testi'onies of the a.ovena'ed witnesses were strai(htforward and ste''ed fro' 'atters within their personal 4nowled(e The* displa*ed none of the a'.ivalence and uncertaint* that the witnesses in the 78th Centur* 1ox case eIhi.ited This cate(orical forthri(htness in their state'ents, a'on( others, was what initiall* and correctl* convinced the trial court to 'a4e a findin( of the eIistence of pro.a.le cause
[==]

There is no ori(inalit* in the ar(u'ent of private respondents a(ainst the validit* of the search warrant, o.viousl* .orrowed fro' 78th Centur* 1ox, that petitionersH witnesses N #1; A(ent 7auro C Re*es, Att* Rico C Do'in(o and Rene C 1alta>ar N did not have personal 4nowled(e of the su.Dect 'atter of their respective testi'onies and that said witnessesH clai' that the video tapes were pirated, without statin( the 'anner .* which these were pirated, is a conclusion of fact without .asis The difference, it 'ust .e pointed out, is that the records in the present case reveal that (1) there is no alle(ation of 'isrepresentation, 'uch less a findin( thereof .* the lower court, on the part of petitionersH witnessesB (2) there is no denial on the part of private respondents that the tapes sei>ed were ille(iti'ate copies of the cop*ri(hted ones nor have the* shown that the* were (iven an* authorit* .* petitioners to cop*, sell, lease, distri.ute or circulate, or at least, to offer for sale, lease, distri.ution or circulation the said video tapesB and (+) a discreet .ut eItensive surveillance of the suspected area was underta4en .* petitionerHs witnesses sufficient to ena.le the' to eIecute trustworth* affidavits and depositions re(ardin( 'atters discovered in the course thereof and of which the* have personal 4nowled(e
[=E]

;t is evidentl* incorrect to su((est, as the rulin( in 2%th Centur* -oI 'a* appear to do, that in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases, the presentation of 'aster

tapes of the cop*ri(hted fil's is alwa*s necessar* to 'eet the re2uire'ent of pro.a.le cause and that, in the a.sence thereof, there can .e no findin( of pro.a.le cause for the issuance of a search warrant ;t is true that such 'aster tapes are o.Dect evidence, with the 'erit that in this class of evidence the ascertain'ent of the controverted fact is 'ade throu(h de'onstrations involvin( the direct use of the senses of the presidin( 'a(istrate !uch auIiliar* procedure, however, does not rule out the use of testi'onial or docu'entar* evidence, depositions, ad'issions or other classes of evidence tendin( to prove the factum pro2andum, especiall* where the production in court of o.Dect evidence would result in dela*, inconvenience or eIpenses out of proportion to its evidentiar* value
[=$] [=?] [=@]

/f course, as a (eneral rule, constitutional and statutor* provisions relatin( to search warrants prohi.it their issuance eIcept on a showin( of pro.a.le cause, supported .* oath or affir'ation These provisions prevent the issuance of warrants on loose, va(ue, or dou.tful .ases of fact, and e'phasi>e the purpose to protect a(ainst all (eneral searches ;ndeed, Article ;;; of our Constitution 'andates in !ec 2 thereof that no search warrant shall issue eIcept upon pro.a.le cause to .e deter'ined personall* .* the Dud(e after eIa'ination under oath or affir'ation of the co'plainant and the witnesses he 'a* produce, and particularl* descri.in( the place to .e searched and the thin(s to .e sei>edB and !ec + thereof provides that an* evidence o.tained in violation of the precedin( section shall .e inad'issi.le for an* purpose in an* proceedin(
[E%]

These constitutional strictures are i'ple'ented .* the followin( provisions of Rule 12E of the Rules of CourtA Se!. 5. Re#uisites for issuing search $arrant. S 8 sear!h #arran" shall no" issue bu" upon probable !ause in !onne!"ion #i"h one spe!ifi! offense "o be de"ermined personally by "he )udge af"er e/amina"ion under oa"h or affirma"ion of "he !omplainan" and "he #i"nesses he may produ!e. and par"i!ularly des!ribing "he pla!e "o be sear!hed and "he "hings "o be sei;ed. Se!. :. ?-a.ination of co.plainant@ record. S he )udge mus". before issuing "he #arran". personally e/amine in "he form of sear!hing 1ues"ions and ans#ers. in #ri"ing and under oa"h "he !omplainan" and any #i"nesses he may produ!e on fa!"s personally 2no#n "o "hem and a""a!h "o "he re!ord "heir s#orn s"a"emen"s "oge"her #i"h any affida$i"s submi""ed. Se!. F. &ssuance and for. of search $arrant. S %f "he )udge is "hereupon sa"isfied of "he e/is"en!e of fa!"s upon #hi!h "he appli!a"ion is based. or "ha" "here is probable

!ause "o belie$e "ha" "hey e/is". he mus" issue "he #arran". #hi!h mus" be subs"an"ially in "he form pres!ribed by "hese ?ules. The constitutional and statutor* provisions of various Durisdictions re2uirin( a showin( of pro.a.le cause .efore a search warrant can .e issued are 'andator* and 'ust .e co'plied with, and such a showin( has .een held to .e an un2ualified condition precedent to the issuance of a warrant A search warrant not .ased on pro.a.le cause is a nullit*, or is void, and the issuance thereof is, in le(al conte'plation, ar.itrar* ;t .ehooves us, then, to review the concept of pro.a.le cause, firstl*, fro' representative holdin(s in the A'erican Durisdiction fro' which we patterned our doctrines on the 'atter
[E1]

Althou(h the ter' 6pro.a.le cause9 has .een said to have a well-defined 'eanin( in the law, the ter' is eIceedin(l* difficult to define, in this case, with an* de(ree of precisionB indeed, no definition of it which would Dustif* the issuance of a search warrant can .e for'ulated which would cover ever* state of facts which 'i(ht arise, and no for'ula or standard, or hard and fast rule, 'a* .e laid down which 'a* .e applied to the facts of ever* situation As to what acts constitute pro.a.le cause see' incapa.le of definition There is, of necessit*, no eIact test
[E2] [E+] [E&]

At .est, the ter' 6pro.a.le cause9 has .een understood to 'ean a reasona.le (round of suspicion, supported .* circu'stances sufficientl* stron( in the'selves to warrant a cautious 'an in the .elief that the person accused is (uilt* of the offense with which he is char(edB or the eIistence of such facts and circu'stances as would eIcite an honest .elief in a reasona.le 'ind actin( on all the facts and circu'stances within the 4nowled(e of the 'a(istrate that the char(e 'ade .* the applicant for the warrant is true
[E=] [EE]

"ro.a.le cause does not 'ean actual and positive cause, nor does it i'port a.solute certaint* The deter'ination of the eIistence of pro.a.le cause is not concerned with the 2uestion of whether the offense char(ed has .een or is .ein( co''itted in fact, or whether the accused is (uilt* or innocent, .ut onl* whether the affiant has reasona.le (rounds for his .elief The re2uire'ent is less than certaint* or proof, 2ut more than suspicion or possi2ilit*
[E$] [E?]

;n "hilippine Durisprudence, pro.a.le cause has .een unifor'l* defined as such facts and circu'stances which would lead a reasona.le, discreet and prudent 'an to .elieve that an offense has .een co''itted, and that the o.Dects sou(ht in connection with the offense are in the place sou(ht to .e searched ;t .ein( the dut* of the issuin( officer to issue, or refuse to issue,
[E@]

the warrant as soon as practica.le after the application therefor is filed, the facts warrantin( the conclusion of pro.a.le cause 'ust .e assessed at the ti'e of such Dudicial deter'ination .* necessaril* usin( le(al standards then set forth in la/ and !urisprudence, and not those that have *et to 2e crafted thereafter
[$%]

As alread* stated, the definition of pro.a.le cause enunciated in 3urgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, et al., supra, vis,a,vis the provisions of !ections + and & of Rule 12E, were the prevailin( and controllin( le(al standards, as the* continue to .e, .* which a findin( of pro.a.le cause is tested !ince the proprietar* of the issuance of a search warrant is to .e deter'ined at the ti'e of the application therefor, which in turn 'ust not .e too re'ote in ti'e fro' the occurrence of the offense alle(ed to have .een co''itted, the issuin( Dud(e, in deter'inin( the eIistence of pro.a.le cause, can and should lo(icall* loo4 to the touchstones in the laws therefore enacted and the decisions alread* pro'ul(ated at the ti'e, and not to those which had not *et even .een conceived or for'ulated ;t is worth notin( that neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Court atte'pt to define pro.a.le cause, o.viousl* for the purpose of leavin( such 'atter to the courtHs discretion within the particular facts of each case Althou(h the Constitution prohi.its the issuance of a search warrant in the a.sence of pro.a.le cause, such constitutional inhi.ition does not co''and the le(islature to esta.lish a definition or for'ula for deter'inin( what shall constitute pro.a.le cause Thus, Con(ress, despite its .road authorit* to fashion standards of reasona.leness for searches and sei>ures, does not venture to 'a4e such a definition or standard for'ulation of pro.a.le cause, nor cate(ori>e what facts and circu'stances 'a4e up the sa'e, 'uch less li'it the deter'ination thereof to and within the circu'scription of a particular class of evidence, all in deference to Dudicial discretion and pro.it*
[$1] [$2] [$+]

Accordin(l*, to restrict the eIercise of discretion .* a Dud(e .* addin( a particular re2uire'ent (the presentation of 'aster tapes, as inti'ated .* 78th Centur* 1ox) not provided nor i'plied in the law for a findin( of pro.a.le cause is .e*ond the real' of Dudicial co'petence or state'anship ;t serves no purpose .ut to stultif* and constrict the Dudicious eIercise of a courtJs prero(atives and to deni(rate the Dudicial dut* of deter'inin( the eIistence of pro.a.le cause to a 'ere 'inisterial or 'echanical function There is, to repeat, no law or rule which re2uires that the eIistence of pro.a.le cause is or should .e deter'ined solel* .* a specific 4ind of evidence !urel*, this could not have .een conte'plated .* the fra'ers of the Constitution, and we do not

.elieve that the Court intended the state'ent in 78th Centur* 1ox re(ardin( 'aster tapes as the dictu' for all seasons and reasons in infrin(e'ent cases Turnin( now to the case at .ar, it can .e (leaned fro' the records that the lower court followed the prescri.ed procedure for the issuances of a search warrantA (1) the eIa'ination under oath or affir'ation of the co'plainant and his witnesses, with the' particularl* descri.in( the place to .e searched and the thin(s to .e sei>edB (2) an eIa'ination personall* conducted .* the Dud(e in the for' of searchin( 2uestions and answers, in writin( and under oath of the co'plainant and witnesses on facts personall* 4nown to the'B and, (+) the ta4in( of sworn state'ents, to(ether with the affidavits su.'itted, which were dul* attached to the records Thereafter, the court a #uo 'ade the followin( factual findin(s leadin( to the issuance of the search warrant now su.Dect to this controvers*A %n "he ins"an" !ase. "he follo#ing fa!"s ha$e been es"ablished' ,1( !opyrigh"ed $ideo "apes bearing "i"les enumera"ed in Sear!h <arran" @o. 84E0F5 #ere being sold. leased. dis"ribu"ed or !ir!ula"ed. or offered for sale. lease. dis"ribu"ion. or "ransferred or !aused "o be "ransferred by defendan"s a" "heir $ideo ou"le"s. #i"hou" "he #ri""en !onsen" of "he pri$a"e !omplainan"s or "heir assignee* ,2( re!o$ered or !onfis!a"ed from defendan"sT possession #ere $ideo "apes !on"aining !opyrigh"ed mo"ion pi!"ure films #i"hou" "he au"hori"y of "he !omplainan"* ,5( "he $ideo "apes origina"ed from spurious or unau"hori;ed persons* and ,:( said $ideo "apes #ere e/a!" reprodu!"ions of "he films lis"ed in "he sear!h #arran" #hose !opyrigh"s or dis"ribu"ion righ"s #ere o#ned by !omplainan"s. he basis of "hese fa!"s are "he affida$i"s and deposi"ions of @B% Senior 8gen" Lauro C. ?eyes. 8""y. ?i!o 7. Domingo. and ?ene C. Bal"a;ar. Mo"ion &i!"ures 8sso!ia"ion of 8meri!a. %n!. ,M&88( "hru "heir !ounsel. 8""y. ?i!o 7. Domingo. filed a !omplain" #i"h "he @a"ional Bureau of %n$es"iga"ion agains" !er"ain $ideo es"ablishmen"s one of #hi!h is defendan". for $iola"ion of &D @o. :9 as amended by &D @o. 1988. 8""y. Lauro C. ?eyes led a "eam "o !ondu!" dis!ree" sur$eillan!e opera"ions on said $ideo es"ablishmen"s. &er informa"ion earlier ga"hered by 8""y. Domingo. defendan"s #ere engaged in "he illegal sale. ren"al. dis"ribu"ion. !ir!ula"ion or publi! e/hibi"ion of !opyrigh"ed films of M&88 #i"hou" i"s #ri""en au"hori"y or i"s members. Dno#ing "ha" defendan" Sunshine -ome 7ideo and i"s proprie"or. Mr. Danilo &elindario. #ere no" au"hori;ed by M&88 "o reprodu!e. lease. and possess for "he purpose of selling any of i"s !opyrigh"ed mo"ion pi!"ures. he ins"ru!"ed his resear!her. Mr. ?ene Bal"a;ar "o ren" "#o $ideo !asse""es from said defendan"s on =!"ober 21. 1984. ?ene C. Bal"a;ar pro!eeded "o Sunshine -ome 7ideo and ren"ed "apes !on"aining Li""le Shop of -orror. -e #as issued ren"al slip @o. 2G5G2 da"ed

=!"ober 21. 1984 for &10.00 #i"h a deposi" of &100.00. 8gain. on De!ember 11. 1984. he re"urned "o Sunshine -ome 7ideo and ren"ed ?obo!op #i"h a ren"al slip @o. 2F241 also for &10.00. =n "he basis of "he !omplain" of M&88 "hru !ounsel. 8""y. Lauro C. ?eyes personally #en" "o Sunshine -ome 7ideo a" @o. G Mayfair Cen"er. Magallanes Commer!ial Cen"er. Ma2a"i. -is las" $isi" #as on De!ember 4. 1984. here. he found "he $ideo ou"le" ren"ing. leasing. dis"ribu"ing $ideo !asse""e "apes #hose "i"les #ere !opyrigh"ed and #i"hou" "he au"hori"y of M&88. Ai$en "hese fa!"s. a probable !ause e/is"s. / / /.
J4:K

The lower court su.se2uentl* eIecuted a volte,face, despite its prior detailed and su.stantiated findin(s, .* statin( in its order of #ove'.er 22, 1@?? den*in( petitionersH 'otion for reconsideration and 2uashin( the search warrant that N / / /. he "#o ,2( !ases ha$e a !ommon fa!"ual milieu* bo"h in$ol$e alleged pira"ed !opyrigh"ed films of pri$a"e !omplainan"s #hi!h #ere found in "he possession or !on"rol of "he defendan"s. -en!e. "he ne!essi"y of "he presen"a"ion of "he mas"er "apes from #hi!h "he pira"ed films #ere allegedly !opied is ne!essary in "he ins"an" !ase. "o es"ablish "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause.
J4FK

1ein( .ased solel* on an unDustifia.le and i'proper retroactive application of the 'aster tape re2uire'ent (enerated .* 78th Centur* 1ox upon a factual situation co'pletel* different fro' that in the case at .ar, and without an*thin( 'ore, this later order clearl* defies ele'ental fair pla* and is a (ross reversi.le error ;n fact, this o.servation of the Court in.a Chemise .acoste, S.A. vs. 1ernande+, et al , supra, 'a* Dust as easil* appl* to the present caseA 8 re$ie# of "he grounds in$o2ed / / / in his mo"ion "o 1uash "he sear!h #arran"s re$eals "he fa!" "ha" "hey are no" appropria"e for 1uashing a #arran". hey are ma""ers of defense #hi!h should be $en"ila"ed during "he "rial on "he meri"s of "he !ase. / / / As correctl* pointed out .* petitioners, a .lind espousal of the re2uisite of presentation of the 'aster tapes in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases, as the pri'e deter'inant of pro.a.le cause, is too eIactin( and i'practica.le a re2uire'ent to .e co'plied with in a search warrant application which, it 'ust not .e overloo4ed, is onl* an ancillar* proceedin( -urther, on realistic considerations, a strict application of said re2uire'ent 'ilitates a(ainst the ele'ents of secrec* and speed which underlie covert investi(ative and surveillance operations in police enforce'ent ca'pai(ns a(ainst all for's of cri'inalit*, considerin( that the 'aster tapes of a 'otion picture re2uired to .e presented .efore the court consists of several reels contained in circular

steel casin(s which, .ecause of their .ul4, will definitel* draw attention, unli4e di'inutive o.Dects li4e video tapes which can .e easil* concealed 3ith hundreds of titles .ein( pirated, this onerous and tedious i'position would .e 'ultiplied a hundredfold .* Dudicial fiat, discoura(in( and preventin( le(al recourses in forei(n Durisdictions
[$E]

Given the present international awareness and furor over violations in lar(e scale of intellectual propert* ri(hts, callin( for transnational sanctions, it .ears callin( to 'ind the CourtHs ad'onition also in .a Chemise .acoste, supra, that N / / /. Ludges all o$er "he !oun"ry are #ell ad$ised "o remember "ha" !our" pro!esses should no" be used as ins"rumen"s "o. un#i""ingly or o"her#ise. aid !oun"erfei"ers and in"elle!"ual pira"es. "ie "he hands of "he la# as i" see2s "o pro"e!" "he >ilipino !onsuming publi! and frus"ra"e e/e!u"i$e and adminis"ra"i$e implemen"a"ion of solemn !ommi"men"s pursuan" "o in"erna"ional !on$en"ions and "rea"ies.
III

The a'end'ent of !ection =E of "residential Decree #o &@ .* "residential Decree #o 1@?$, which should here .e pu.lici>ed Dudiciall*, .rou(ht a.out the revision of its penalt* structure and enu'erated additional acts considered violative of said decree on intellectual propert*, na'el*, (1) directl* or indirectl* transferrin( or causin( to .e transferred an* sound recordin( or 'otion picture or other audio-visual wor4s so recorded with intent to sell, lease, pu.licl* eIhi.it or cause to .e sold, leased or pu.licl* eIhi.ited, or to use or cause to .e used for profit such articles on which sounds, 'otion pictures, or other audio-visual wor4s are so transferred without the written consent of the owner or his assi(neeB (2) sellin(, leasin(, distri.utin(, circulatin(, pu.licl* eIhi.itin(, or offerin( for sale, lease, distri.ution, or possessin( for the purpose of sale, lease, distri.ution, circulation or pu.lic eIhi.ition an* of the a.ove'entioned articles, without the written consent of the owner or his assi(neeB and, (+) directl* or indirectl* offerin( or 'a4in( availa.le for a fee, rental, or an* other for' of co'pensation an* e2uip'ent, 'achiner*, paraphernalia or an* 'aterial with the 4nowled(e that such e2uip'ent, 'achiner*, paraphernalia or 'aterial will .e used .* another to reproduce, without the consent of the owner, an* phono(raph record, disc, wire, tape, fil' or other article on which sounds, 'otion pictures or other audio-visual recordin(s 'a* .e transferred, and which provide distinct .ases for cri'inal prosecution, .ein( cri'es independentl* punisha.le under "residential Decree #o &@, as a'ended, aside fro' the act of infrin(in( or aidin( or a.ettin( such infrin(e'ent under !ection 2@
[$$]

The trial courtHs findin( that private respondents co''itted acts in .latant trans(ression of "residential Decree #o &@ all the 'ore .olsters its findin(s of pro.a.le cause, which deter'ination can .e reached even in the a.sence of 'aster tapes .* the Dud(e in the eIercise of sound discretion The eIecutive concern and resolve eIpressed in the fore(oin( a'end'ents to the decree for the protection of intellectual propert* ri(hts should .e 'atched .* correspondin( Dudicial vi(ilance and activis', instead of the apath* of su.'ittin( to technicalities in the face of a'ple evidence of (uilt The essence of intellectual pirac* should .e essa*ed in conceptual ter's in order to underscore its (ravit* .* an appropriate understandin( thereof ;nfrin(e'ent of a cop*ri(ht is a trespass on a private do'ain owned and occupied .* the owner of the cop*ri(ht, and, therefore, protected .* law, and infrin(e'ent of cop*ri(ht, or pirac*, which is a s*non*'ous ter' in this connection, consists in the doin( .* an* person, without the consent of the owner of the cop*ri(ht, of an*thin( the sole ri(ht to do which is conferred .* statute on the owner of the cop*ri(ht
[$?]

A cop* of a pirac* is an infrin(e'ent of the ori(inal, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not 4now what wor4s he was indirectl* cop*in(, or did not 4now whether or not he was infrin(in( an* cop*ri(htB he at least 4new that what he was cop*in( was not his, and he copied at his peril ;n deter'inin( the 2uestion of infrin(e'ent, the a'ount of 'atter copied fro' the cop*ri(hted wor4 is an i'portant consideration To constitute infrin(e'ent, it is not necessar* that the whole or even a lar(e portion of the wor4 shall have .een copied ;f so 'uch is ta4en that the value of the ori(inal is sensi.l* di'inished, or the la.ors of the ori(inal author are su.stantiall* and to an inDurious eItent appropriated .* another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute a pirac* The 2uestion of whether there has .een an actiona.le infrin(e'ent of a literar*, 'usical, or artistic wor4 in 'otion pictures, radio or television .ein( one of fact, it should properl* .e deter'ined durin( the trial That is the sta(e callin( for conclusive or preponderatin( evidence, and not the su''ar* proceedin( for the issuance of a search warrant wherein .oth lower courts erroneousl* re2uire the 'aster tapes
[$@] [?%]

;n disre(ardin( private respondentHs ar(u'ent that !earch 3arrant #o ?$-%=+ is a (eneral warrant, the lower court o.served that 6it was worded in a 'anner that the enu'erated sei>a.le ite's .ear direct relation to the offense of violation of !ec =E of "D &@ as a'ended ;t authori>ed onl* the sei>ur(e) of articles used or intended to .e used in the unlawful sale, lease and other unconcerted acts in violation of "D &@ as a'ended I I I 9
[?1]

/n this point, 3ache and Co., '%hil.(, Inc., et al. vs. Rui+, et al , instructs and enli(htensA
[?2]

8 sear!h #arran" may be said "o par"i!ularly des!ribe "he "hings "o be sei;ed #hen "he des!rip"ion "herein is as spe!ifi! as "he !ir!ums"an!es #ill ordinarily allo# ,&eople *s. ?ubio. F4 &hil. 58:(* or #hen "he des!rip"ion e/presses a !on!lusion of fa!" S no" of la# S by #hi!h "he #arran" offi!er may be guided in ma2ing "he sear!h and sei;ure ,ide... dissen" of 8bad San"os. 6..(* or #hen "he "hings des!ribed are limi"ed "o "hose #hi!h bear dire!" rela"ion "o "he offense for #hi!h "he #arran" is being issued ,Se!. 2. ?ule 12G. ?e$ised ?ules of Cour"(. / / /. %f "he ar"i!les desired "o be sei;ed ha$e any dire!" rela"ion "o an offense !ommi""ed. "he appli!an" mus" ne!essarily ha$e some e$iden!e. o"her "han "hose ar"i!les. "o pro$e "he said offense* and "he ar"i!les sub)e!" of sear!h and sei;ure should !ome in handy merely "o s"reng"hen su!h e$iden!e. / / /. /n private respondentsH aver'ent that the search warrant was 'ade applica.le to 'ore than one specific offense on the (round that there are as 'an* offenses of infrin(e'ent as there are ri(hts protected and, therefore, to issue one search warrant for all the 'ovie titles alle(edl* pirated violates the rule that a search warrant 'ust .e issued onl* in connection with one specific offense, the lower court saidA / / /. 8s "he fa!e of "he sear!h #arran" i"self indi!a"es. i" #as issued for $iola"ion of Se!"ion FG. &D :9 as amended only. he spe!ifi!a"ions "herein ,in 8nne/ 8( merely refer "o "he "i"les of "he !opyrigh"ed mo"ion pi!"uresOfilms belonging "o pri$a"e !omplainan"s #hi!h defendan"s #ere in !on"rolOpossession for sale. lease. dis"ribu"ion or publi! e/hibi"ion in !on"ra$en"ion of Se!. FG. &D :9 as amended.
J85K

That there were several counts of the offense of cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent and the search warrant uncovered several contra.and ite's in the for' of pirated video tapes is not to .e confused with the nu'.er of offenses char(ed The search warrant herein issued does not violate the one-specific-offense rule ;t is pointless for private respondents to insist on co'pliance with the re(istration and deposit re2uire'ents under "residential Decree #o &@ as prere2uisites for invo4in( the courtHs protective 'antle in cop*ri(ht infrin(e'ent cases As eIplained .* the court .elowA Defendan"sEmo$an"s !on"end "ha" &D :9 as amended !o$ers only produ!ers #ho ha$e !omplied #i"h "he re1uiremen"s of deposi" and no"i!e ,in o"her #ords regis"ra"ion( under Se!"ions :9 and F0 "hereof. 8bsen" su!h regis"ra"ion. as in "his !ase. "here #as

no righ" !rea"ed. hen!e. no infringemen" under &D :9 as amended. "a2en.

his is no" #ellE

8s !orre!"ly poin"ed ou" by pri$a"e !omplainan"sEopposi"ors. "he Depar"men" of Lus"i!e has resol$ed "his legal 1ues"ion as far ba!2 as De!ember 12. 1948 in i"s =pinion @o. 191 of "he "hen Se!re"ary of Lus"i!e 7i!en"e 8bad San"os #hi!h s"a"ed "ha" Se!"ions 2G and F0 do no" apply "o !inema"ographi! #or2s and &D @o. :9 0had done a#ay #i"h "he regis"ra"ion and deposi" of !inema"ographi! #or2s3 and "ha" 0e$en #i"hou" prior regis"ra"ion and deposi" of a #or2 #hi!h may be en"i"led "o pro"e!"ion under "he De!ree. "he !rea"or !an file a!"ion for infringemen" of i"s righ"s.3 -e !anno" demand. ho#e$er. paymen" of damages arising from infringemen". he same opinion s"ressed "ha" 0"he re1uiremen"s of regis"ra"ion and deposi" are "hus re"ained under "he De!ree. no" as !ondi"ions for "he a!1uisi"ion of !opyrigh" and o"her righ"s. bu" as prere1uisi"es "o a sui" for damages.3 he s"a"u"ory in"erpre"a"ion of "he 6/e!u"i$e Bran!h being !orre!". is en"i"led ,"o( #eigh" and respe!". III III III

Defendan"sEmo$an"s main"ain "ha" !omplainan" and his #i"nesses led "he Cour" "o belie$e "ha" a !rime e/is"ed #hen in fa!" "here #as none. his is #rong. 8s earlier dis!ussed. &D :9 as amended. does no" re1uire regis"ra"ion and deposi" for a !rea"or "o be able "o file an a!"ion for infringemen" of his righ"s. hese !ondi"ions are merely preEre1uisi"es "o an a!"ion for damages. So. as long as "he pros!ribed a!"s are sho#n "o e/is". an a!"ion for infringemen" may be ini"ia"ed.
J8:K

Accordin(l*, the certifications fro' the Cop*ri(ht !ection of the #ational 7i.rar*, presented as evidence .* private respondents to show nonre(istration of so'e of the fil's of petitioners, assu'e no evidentiar* wei(ht or si(nificance, whatsoever
[?=]

-urther'ore, a closer review of "residential Decree #o &@ reveals that even with respect to wor4s which are re2uired under !ection 2E thereof to .e re(istered and with copies to .e deposited with the #ational 7i.rar*, such as .oo4s, includin( co'posite and c*clopedic wor4s, 'anuscripts, directories and (a>etteersB and periodicals, includin( pa'phlets and newspapersB lectures, ser'ons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral deliver*B and letters, the failure to co'pl* with said re2uire'ents does not deprive the cop*ri(ht owner of the ri(ht to sue for infrin(e'ent !uch non-co'pliance 'erel* li'its the re'edies availa.le to hi' and su.Dects hi' to the correspondin( sanction The reason for this is eIpressed in !ection 2 of the decree which prefaces its enu'eration of cop*ri(hta.le wor4s with the eIplicit state'ent that 6the

ri(hts (ranted under this Decree shall, fro' the 'o'ent of creation, su.sist with respect to an* of the followin( classes of wor4s 9 This 'eans that under the present state of the law, the cop*ri(ht for a wor4 is ac2uired .* an intellectual creator fro' the 'o'ent of creation even in the a.sence of re(istration and deposit As has .een authoritativel* clarifiedA he regis"ra"ion and deposi" of "#o !omple"e !opies or reprodu!"ions of "he #or2 #i"h "he @a"ional Library #i"hin "hree #ee2s af"er "he firs" publi! dissemina"ion or performan!e of "he #or2. as pro$ided for in Se!"ion 2G ,&.D. @o. :9. as amended(. is no" for "he purpose of se!uring a !opyrigh" of "he #or2. bu" ra"her "o a$oid "he penal"y for nonE!omplian!e of "he deposi" of said "#o !opies and in order "o re!o$er damages in an infringemen" sui".
J8GK

/ne distressin( o.servation This case has .een fou(ht on the .asis of, and its resolution lon( dela*ed .* resort to, technicalities to a virtuall* a.usive eItent .* private respondents, without so 'uch as an atte'pt to adduce an* credi.le evidence showin( that the* conduct their .usiness le(iti'atel* and fairl* The fact that private respondents could not show proof of their authorit* or that there was consent fro' the cop*ri(ht owners for the' to sell, lease, distri.ute or circulate petitionersH cop*ri(hted fil's i''easura.l* .olsters the lower courtHs initial findin( of pro.a.le cause That private respondents are licensed .* the Cideo(ra' Re(ulator* 1oard does not insulate the' fro' cri'inal and civil lia.ilit* for their unlawful .usiness practices 3hat is 'ore deplora.le is that the reprehensi.le acts of so'e unscrupulous characters have sti('ati>ed the "hilippines with an unsavor* reputation as a hu. for intellectual pirac* in this part of the (lo.e, for'erl* in the records of the General A(ree'ent on Tariffs and Trade and, now, of the 3orld Trade /r(ani>ation !uch acts 'ust not .e (lossed over .ut should .e denounced and repressed lest the "hilippines .eco'e an international pariah in the (lo.al intellectual co''unit* WHEREFORE, the assailed Dud('ent and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, and necessaril* inclusive of the order of the lower court dated #ove'.er 22, 1@??, are here.* R8C8R!8D and !8T A!;D8 . The order of the court a #uo of !epte'.er =, 1@?? upholdin( the validit* of !earch 3arrant #o ?$-%=+ is here.* R8;#!TAT8D, and said court is D;R8CT8D to ta4e and eIpeditiousl* proceed with such appropriate proceedin(s as 'a* .e called for in this case Tre.le costs are further assessed a(ainst private respondents SO OR)ERE).

-arvasa, C."., %adilla, $avide, "r., Romero, Melo, %uno, :itug, )apunan, Mendo+a, 1rancisco, 9ermosisima, "r., %angani2an, and Torres, "r., ""., concur. 3ellosillo, "., no part in deli.erations

)AN%* S!OR#(&AR )ANUFAC#URING, INC., &e"i"ioner. E $ersus E

A.?. @o. 1GF50G &resen"' Da$ide. Lr.. C.6. ,Chairman(. Muisumbing. BnaresESan"iago. Carpio. and 8;!una. 66. &romulga"ed' Sep"ember 20. 200F

"A"O"&##& &N#&R!RIS&S AN"=OR 7&R)&S S!OR#S C&N#&R, ?esponden"s.

/ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE /

#$%&'&()
*NAR&S,SAN#IAGO, J.'
his pe"i"ion for re$ie# on !er"iorariJ1K under ?ule :F of "he ?e$ised ?ules of Ci$il &ro!edure assails "he Luly 15. 200: de!ision J2K of "he Cour" of 8ppealsJ5K in C8EA.?. S& @o. 49884 and i"s Sep"ember 1F. 200: resolu"ion J:K denying re!onsidera"ion "hereof. he fa!"s are as follo#s' =n Mar!h 1:. 2005. Spe!ial %n$es"iga"or 6lie;er &. Sal!edo of "he @a"ional Bureau of %n$es"iga"ion ,@B%( applied for a sear!h #arran" before "he ?egional rial Cour" ,? C( of Mue;on Ci"y. based on "he informa"ion "ha" Dadode""e 6n"erprises andOor -ermes Spor"s Cen"er #ere in possession of goods. "he !opyrigh" of #hi!h belonged "o Manly Spor"s#ear Mfg.. %n!. ,M8@LB(.JFK 8f"er finding reasonable grounds "ha" a $iola"ion of Se!"ions 142 and 214 of ?epubli! 8!" ,?8( @o. 8295JGK has been !ommi""ed. Ludge 6s"rella . 6s"rada of ? CEMue;on Ci"y. Bran!h 85. issued on Mar!h 14. 2005 Sear!h <arran" @o. :0::,05(.J4K

?esponden"s "hereaf"er mo$ed "o 1uash and annul "he sear!h #arran" !on"ending "ha" "he same is in$alid sin!e "he re1uisi"es for i"s issuan!e ha$e no" been !omplied #i"h. hey insis"ed "ha" "he spor"ing goods manufa!"ured by andOor regis"ered in "he name of M8@LB are ordinary and !ommon hen!e. no" among "he !lasses of #or2 pro"e!"ed under Se!"ion 142 of ?8 8295. =n Lune 10. 2005. "he "rial !our" gran"ed "he mo"ion "o 1uash and de!lared Sear!h <arran" @o. :0::,05( null and $oid based on i"s finding "ha" "he !opyrigh"ed produ!"s of M8@LB do no" appear "o be original !rea"ions and #ere being manufa!"ured and dis"ribu"ed by differen" !ompanies lo!ally and abroad under $arious brands. and "herefore un1ualified for pro"e!"ion under Se!"ion 142 of ?8 8295. Moreo$er. M8@LBHs !er"ifi!a"es of regis"ra"ions #ere issued only in 2002. #hereas "here #ere !er"ifi!a"es of regis"ra"ions for "he same spor"s ar"i!les #hi!h #ere issued earlier "han M8@LBHs. "hus fur"her nega"ing "he !laim "ha" i"s !opyrigh"ed produ!"s #ere original !rea"ions.J8K =n 8ugus" 11. 2005. "he "rial !our" deniedJ9K M8@LBHs mo"ion for re!onsidera"ion. -en!e i" filed a pe"i"ion for !er"iorari J10K before "he Cour" of 8ppeals #hi!h #as denied for la!2 of meri". he appella"e !our" found "ha" "he "rial !our" !orre!"ly gran"ed "he mo"ion "o 1uash and "ha" i"s ruling in "he an!illary pro!eeding did no" preemp" "he findings of "he in"elle!"ual proper"y !our" as i" did no" resol$e #i"h finali"y "he s"a"us or !hara!"er of "he sei;ed i"ems. 8f"er denial of i"s mo"ion for re!onsidera"ion on Sep"ember 1F. 200:. M8@LB filed "he ins"an" pe"i"ion for re$ie# on !er"iorari raising "he sole issue of #he"her or no" "he Cour" of 8ppeals erred in finding "ha" "he "rial !our" did no" gra$ely abuse i"s dis!re"ion in de!laring in "he hearing for "he 1uashal of "he sear!h #arran" "ha" "he !opyrigh"ed produ!"s of M8@LB are no" original !rea"ions sub)e!" "o "he pro"e!"ion of ?8 8295. <e deny "he pe"i"ion. he po#er "o issue sear!h #arran"s is e/!lusi$ely $es"ed #i"h "he "rial )udges in "he e/er!ise of "heir )udi!ial fun!"ion.J11K 8s su!h. "he po#er "o 1uash "he same also res"s solely #i"h "hem. 8f"er "he )udge has issued a #arran". he is no" pre!luded "o subse1uen"ly 1uash "he same. if he finds upon ree$alua"ion of "he e$iden!e "ha" no probable !ause e/is"s.

=ur ruling in Solid <riangle Sales Corp. *. Sheriff0 R<C0 A.C.0 ;r. "3J12K is ins"ru!"i$e. "hus'
%nheren" in "he !our"sH po#er "o issue sear!h #arran"s is "he po#er "o 1uash #arran"s already issued. %n "his !onne!"ion. "his Cour" has ruled "ha" "he mo"ion "o 1uash should be filed in "he !our" "ha" issued "he #arran" unless a !riminal !ase has already been ins"i"u"ed in ano"her !our". in #hi!h !ase. "he mo"ion should be filed #i"h "he la""er. he ruling has sin!e been in!orpora"ed in ?ule 12G of "he ?e$ised ?ules of Criminal &ro!edureJ.K

%n "he ins"an" !ase. #e find "ha" "he "rial !our" did no" abuse i"s dis!re"ion #hen i" en"er"ained "he mo"ion "o 1uash !onsidering "ha" no !riminal a!"ion has ye" been ins"i"u"ed #hen i" #as filed. he "rial !our" also properly 1uashed "he sear!h #arran" i" earlier issued af"er finding upon ree$alua"ion of "he e$iden!e "ha" no probable !ause e/is"s "o )us"ify i"s issuan!e in "he firs" pla!e. 8s ruled by "he "rial !our". "he !opyrigh"ed produ!"s do no" appear "o be original !rea"ions of M8@LB and are no" among "he !lasses of #or2 enumera"ed under Se!"ion 142 of ?8 8295. he "rial !our". "hus. may no" be faul"ed for o$er"urning i"s ini"ial assessmen" "ha" "here #as probable !ause in $ie# of i"s inheren" po#er "o issue sear!h #arran"s and "o 1uash "he same. @o ob)e!"ion may be $alidly posed "o an order 1uashing a #arran" already issued as "he !our" mus" be pro$ided #i"h "he oppor"uni"y "o !orre!" i"self of an error un#i""ingly !ommi""ed. or. #i"h li2e effe!". "o allo# "he aggrie$ed par"y "he !han!e "o !on$in!e "he !our" "ha" i"s ruling is erroneous. Moreo$er. "he "rial !our" #as a!"ing #i"hin bounds #hen i" ruled. in an an!illary pro!eeding. "ha" "he !opyrigh"ed produ!"s of pe"i"ioner are no" original !rea"ions. his is be!ause in "he de"ermina"ion of "he e/is"en!e of probable !ause for "he issuan!e or 1uashal of a #arran". i" is ine$i"able "ha" "he !our" may "ou!h on issues properly "hreshed ou" in a regular pro!eeding. %n so doing. i" does no" usurp "he po#er of. mu!h less pre!lude. "he !our" from ma2ing a final )udi!ial de"ermina"ion of "he issues in a fullEblo#n "rial. Conse1uen"ly. M8@LBHs asser"ion "ha" "he "rial !our"Hs order 1uashing "he #arran" preemp"ed "he finding of "he in"elle!"ual proper"y !our" has no legal basis. 8s per"inen"ly held in Solid <riangle Sales Corp. *. Sheriff0 R<C0 A.C.0 ;r. "3'
J15K

<hen "he !our". in de"ermining probable !ause for issuing or 1uashing a sear!h #arran". finds "ha" no offense has been !ommi""ed. i"

does no" in"erfere #i"h or en!roa!h upon "he pro!eedings in "he preliminary in$es"iga"ion. he !our" does no" oblige "he in$es"iga"ing offi!er no" "o file an informa"ion for "he !our"Hs ruling "ha" no !rime e/is"s is only for purposes of issuing or 1uashing "he #arran". his does no". as pe"i"ioners #ould li2e "o belie$e. !ons"i"u"e a usurpa"ion of "he e/e!u"i$e fun!"ion. %ndeed. "o shir2 from "his du"y #ould amoun" "o an abdi!a"ion of a !ons"i"u"ional obliga"ion. ... ... he finding by "he !our" "ha" no !rime e/is"s does no" pre!lude "he au"hori;ed offi!er !ondu!"ing "he preliminary in$es"iga"ion from ma2ing his o#n de"ermina"ion "ha" a !rime has been !ommi""ed and "ha" probable !ause e/is"s for purposes of filing "he informa"ion.

8s !orre!"ly obser$ed by "he Cour" of 8ppeals. "he "rial !our"Hs finding "ha" "he sei;ed produ!"s are no" !opyrigh"able #as merely preliminary as i" did no" finally and permanen"ly ad)udi!a"e on "he s"a"us and !hara!"er of "he sei;ed i"ems. M8@LB !ould s"ill file a separa"e !opyrigh" infringemen" sui" agains" "he responden"s be!ause "he order for "he issuan!e or 1uashal of a #arran" is no" res 2udicata. hus. in Vlasons ?nterprises Corporation *. Court of AppealsJ1:K #e held "ha"'
he pro!eeding for "he sei;ure of proper"y in $ir"ue of a sear!h #arran" does no" end #i"h "he a!"ual "a2ing of "he proper"y by "he proper offi!ers and i"s deli$ery. usually !ons"ru!"i$e. "o "he !our". he order for "he issuan!e of "he #arran" is no" a final one and !anno" !ons"i"u"e res 2udicata. Su!h an order does no" as!er"ain and ad)udi!a"e "he permanen" s"a"us or !hara!"er of "he sei;ed proper"y. By i"s $ery na"ure. i" is pro$isional. in"erlo!u"ory. %" is merely "he firs" s"ep in "he pro!ess "o de"ermine "he !hara!"er and "i"le of "he proper"y. ha" de"ermina"ion is done in "he !riminal a!"ion in$ol$ing "he !rime or !rimes in !onne!"ion #i"h #hi!h "he sear!h #arran" #as issued. -en!e. su!h a !riminal a!"ion should be prose!u"ed. or !ommen!ed if no" ye" ins"i"u"ed. and prose!u"ed. he ou"!ome of "he !riminal a!"ion #ill di!"a"e "he disposi"ion of "he sei;ed proper"yI

<e ha$e also ruled in Ching *. Salinas0 Sr.0 et al.J1FK "ha"'

he ? C had )urisdi!"ion "o del$e in"o and resol$e "he issue #he"her "he pe"i"ionerHs u"ili"y models are !opyrigh"able and. if so. #he"her he is "he o#ner of a !opyrigh" o$er "he said models. %" bears s"ressing "ha" upon "he filing of "he appli!a"ion for sear!h #arran". "he ? C #as du"yEbound "o de"ermine #he"her probable !ause e/is"ed. in a!!ordan!e #i"h Se!"ion :. ?ule 12G of "he ?ules of Criminal &ro!edureJ.K

>ur"her. "he !opyrigh" !er"ifi!a"es issued in fa$or of M8@LB !ons"i"u"e merely pri.a facie e$iden!e of $alidi"y and o#nership. -o#e$er. no presump"ion of $alidi"y is !rea"ed #here o"her e$iden!e e/is" "ha" may !as" doub" on "he !opyrigh" $alidi"y. -en!e. #here "here is suffi!ien" proof "ha" "he !opyrigh"ed produ!"s are no" original !rea"ions bu" are readily a$ailable in "he mar2e" under $arious brands. as in "his !ase. $alidi"y and originali"y #ill no" be presumed and "he "rial !our" may properly 1uash "he issued #arran" for la!2 of probable !ause. Besides. no !opyrigh" a!!rues in fa$or of M8@LB despi"e issuan!e of "he !er"ifi!a"es of regis"ra"ion and deposi"J1GK pursuan" "o Se!"ion 2. ?ule 4 of "he Copyrigh"s Safeguards and ?egula"ionsJ14K #hi!h s"a"es'
Se!. 2 6ffe!"s of ?egis"ra"ion and Deposi" of <or2. he regis"ra"ion and deposi" of "he #or2 is purely for re!ording "he da"e of regis"ra"ion and deposi" of "he #or2 and shall no" be !on!lusi$e as "o !opyrigh" o#nership or "he "erm of "he !opyrigh"s or "he righ"s of "he !opyrigh" o#ner. in!luding neighboring righ"s.

8" mos". "he !er"ifi!a"es of regis"ra"ion and deposi" issued by "he @a"ional Library and "he Supreme Cour" Library ser$e merely as a no"i!e of re!ording and regis"ra"ion of "he #or2 bu" do no" !onfer any righ" or "i"le upon "he regis"ered !opyrigh" o#ner or au"oma"i!ally pu" his #or2 under "he pro"e!"i$e man"le of "he !opyrigh" la#. %" is no" a !on!lusi$e proof of !opyrigh" o#nership. 8s i" is. nonE regis"ra"ion and deposi" of "he #or2 #i"hin "he pres!ribed period only ma2es "he !opyrigh" o#ner liable "o pay a fine.J18K (7&R&FOR&. "he pe"i"ion is "&NI&". he Luly 15. 200: de!ision of "he Cour" of 8ppeals in C8EA.?. S& @o. 49884 and resolu"ion da"ed Sep"ember 1F. 200:. are AFFIR)&". SO OR"&R&".