PEDRO SERRANO LAKTAW v.

MAMERTO PAGLINAWAN
G.R. No. L-11937, 1 April 1918, En Banc (Araullo, J.)
Facts:
The plaintiff, Pedro Laktaw was, according to the laws regulating literary properties, the
registered owner of a literary work entitled Diccionario Hispano Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog
Dictionary) published in the City of Manila in 1889 by the printing establishment La Opinion.
The defendant, Mamerto Paglinawan, without consent of the plaintiff, reproduced the
said literary work, improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work published by him and
entitled Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish- Tagalog Dictionary).
The act of Paglinawan, which is a violation of Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879,
on Intellectual Property, caused irreparable injuries to Laktaw, who was surprised when, on
publishing his new work entitled Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (Tagalog-Spanish Dictionary) he
learned of the fact, and that damages occasioned to the plaintiff by the publication of defendants
work amounted to $ 10,000.00. Laktaw prayed the court to order Paglinawan to withdraw from
sale all stock of the work and to pay him the sum of $ 10,000.00 with costs.
Paglinawan, in his answer denied generally each and every allegation of the complaint
and prayed the court to absolve him from complaint.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant, Mamerto Paglinawan, violated Article 7 of the Law of
January 10, 1879 on Intellectual Property
Ruling:
Yes. The defendant, Mamerto Paglinawan violated Article 7 of the Law of January 10,
1879 on Intellectual Property. The said article states that, Nobody may reproduce another
persons work without the owners consent, even merely to annotate or add anything to it, or
improve any edition thereof. It is not necessary that a work should be an improper copy of
another work previously published.
The court makes no special pronouncement as to the costs of this instance.

MAURO MALANG SANTOS v. MCCULOUGH PRINTING COMPANY

G.R. No. L- 19439, 31 October 1964, En Banc (Paredes, J)

Facts:
Mauro Santos filed an action for damages for unauthorized use, adoption and
appropriation by Mccullough Printing Company of the intellectual creation or artistic design for
a Christmas card by Santos based on the provisions of Articles 721 & 722 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
The design depicts a Philippine rural Christmas time scene consisting of a woman and a
child in a nipa hut adorned with a star-shaped lantern and a man astride a carabao, besidea tree,
underneath which appears Santos pen name, Malang.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Mauro Santos, designed for former Ambassador
Felino Neri, for his personal Christmas card greetings for the year 1959, the artistic motif in
question. The following year, Mccullough Printing Company, without the knowledge and
authority of the plaintiff, displayed the very design in its album of Christmas cards and offered it
for sale, for a price. For such unauthorized act of defendant, the plaintiff suffered moral damages
of Php 16,000.00, because of it has placed the plaintiffs professional integrity and ethics under
serious question and caused him grave embarrassment before Ambassador Neri. He further
prayed for the additional sum of Php 3,000.00 by way of attorneys fee.
Defendant in answer to the complaint, after some denials and admissions, moved for the
dismissal of the action claiming that
1. The design claimed does not contain a clear notice that it belonged to him and that he
prohibited its use by others;
2. The design in question has been published but does not contain a notice of copyright, as
in fact it never been copyrighted by the plaintiff, for which reason this action is barred by
the Copyright Law;
3. The complaint does not state cause of action.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the plaintiff, Mauro Santos is entitled to protection, notwithstanding the
fact that he has not copyrighted his design
2. Whether or not the publication is limited, so as to prohibit its use by others or it is general
publication
Ruling:
1. No. The plaintiff is not entitled to a protection, the provision of the Civil Code,
notwithstanding. Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order No. 3 (as amended
dated September 18, 1947) entitled Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office
relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims promulgated pursuant to Republic Act
165, provides, among others, that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted 30 days
after its publication, if made in Manila, or within 60 days if made elsewhere, failure of
which renders such creation public property. In the case at bar, even as if this moment,
there is no copyright design in question.

a. No. The publication is not limited but a general one. The Supreme Court ruled
that, they are not prepared to accept the contention of appellant that the
publication of the design was a limited one, or that there was an understanding
that only Ambassador Neri should, have absolute right to use the same. In the first
place, if such were the condition then Ambassador Neri would be the aggrieved
party, and not the appellant. In the second place, if there was such a limited
publication or prohibition, the same was not shown on the face of the design.
When the purpose is a limited publication, but the effect is general publication,
irrevocable rights thereupon become vested in the public, in consequence of
which enforcement of the restriction becomes impossible (Nutt vs. National
Institute, 31 F [2d] 236). It has been held that the effect of offering for sale a
dress, for example manufactured in accordance with an original design which is
not protected by either a copyright or a patent, is to divest the owner of his
common law rights therein by virtue of the publication of a copy and thereafter
anyone is free to copy the design or the dress (Fashion Originators Guild of
America v. Federal Trade Commission, 114 F [2d] 80).
When Ambassador Neri distributed 800 copies of the design in
controversy, the plaintiff lost control of his design and the necessary implication
was that there had been a general publication, there having been no showing of a
clear indication that a limited publication was intended. The author of a literary
composition has a light to the first publication thereof. He has a right to determine
whether it shall be published at all, and if published, when, where, by whom, and
in what form. This exclusive right is confined to the first publication. When once
published, it is dedicated to the public, and the author loses the exclusive right to
control subsequent publication by others, unless the work is placed under the
protection of the copyright law.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from, should be, as it is hereby AFFIRMED with costs
against plaintiff.

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. v.

BENJAMIN TAN

G.R. No. L-36402, 16 March 1987, (Paras, J)

Facts:
The plaintiff, Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Inc. (FILSCAP for
brevity) is a non-profit association of authors, composers and publishers duly organized under
the Corporation Law of the Philippines and registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The said association is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are
the songs entitled: Dahil Sa Iyo, Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin, Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang,
and The Nearness of You.
On the other hand, Benjamin Tan, the defendant is the operator of a restaurant known as
Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant where a combo with professional singers, hired to play
and sing musical compositions to entertain and amuse customers therein, were playing and
singing the above-mentioned compositions without any license or permission from the FILSCAP
to play or sing the same. Accordingly, FILSCAP demanded from the defendant payment of
necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions but the demand was
ignored.
On November 7, 1967, FILSCAP filed a complaint with the lower court for the
infringement of copyright against Benjamin Tan for allowing the playing in his restaurant of the
said songs copyrighted in the name of the former.
Benjamin Tan, in his answer, countered that the complaint states no cause of action.
While not denying the playing of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment, he
maintains that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are
copyrighted do not constitute an infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright
Law.
Issue:
Whether or not the playing and singing of musical compositions which have been
copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the establishment of
the defendant, Benjamin Tan constitute a public performance for profit within the meaning and
contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines
Ruling:
Yes. The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was paid for by the
public in purchases of food and drink constituted performance for profit within the Copyright
Law. It has been explained that while it is possible in such establishments for the patrons to
purchase their food and drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the orchestra, the
music is furnished and used by the orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public to patronize
the establishment and pay for the entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks. The
defendant conducts his place of business for profit, and it is public; and the music is performed
for profit.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed decision of the CFI is hereby AFFIRMED

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA

SYSTEM, INC.
G.R. No. 175769-70, 19 January 2009, First Division (Ynares-Santiago, J)
Facts:
The petitioner, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is licensed under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines to engage in television and radio broadcasting. It broadcasts
television programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to
provincial stations through Channel 2 on Very High Frequency (VHF) and Channel 23 on Ultra
High Frequency (UHF). The programs aired over the said channels are either produced by ABSCBN or purchased from or licensed by other producers. It also owns regional television stations
which pattern their programming in accordance with perceived demands of the region. Thus,
television programs shown in Metro Manila and nearby provinces are not necessarily shown in
other provinces.
The respondent, Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) is the operator of Dream
Broadcasting System. It delivers digital direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to its
subscribers all over the Philippines.
PMSI was granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 8630 on May 7, 1998
and was given a Provisional Authority by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
on February 1, 2000 to install, operate and maintain a nationwide DTH satellite service. When
commenced operations, it offered as part of its program line-up ABS-CBN Channels 2 & 23,
NBN, Channel 4, ABC Channel 5, GMA Channel 7, RPN Channel 9, IBC Channel 13, together
with other paid premium program channels.
However, on April 25, 2001, ABS-CBN demanded for PMSI to cease and desist from
rebroadcasting Channels 2 & 23. On April 27, 2001, PMSI replied that the rebroadcasting was in
accordance with the authority granted by NTC and its obligation under NTC Memorandum
Circular No. 4-08-08, Section 6.2 of which requires all cable television system operators
operating in a community within Grade A or B contours to carry the television signals of the
authorized television broadcast stations.
Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties in an effort to reach a settlement;
however, the negotiations were terminated by ABS-CBN due to PMSIs inability to ensure the
prevention of illegal transmission and further rebroadcast of its signals, as well as the adverse
effect of the rebroadcasts on the business operations of its regional television stations.
On May 13, 2002, ABS-CBN filed with the IPO a complaint for Violation of Laws
Involving Property Rights, with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.
On July 2, 2002, The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO granted ABS-CBNs
application for a TRO. On July 12, 2002, PMSI suspended its retransmission of Channels 2 &
23.

Issue:
Whether or not PMSI infringed the broadcasting rights and copyright of ABS-CBN
Ruling:
No. There is no merit in ABS-CBNs contention that PMSI violated its broadcasting
rights Code. Neither is PMSI guilty of infringement under Section 177 of the IP Code which
states that copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize
or prevent the public performance of the work, and other communication to the public of work.
Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as the transmission by wireless means
for public reception of sounds or of images or of representations thereof; such transmission by
satellite is also broadcasting where the means of decrypting are provided to the public by the
broadcasting organization or with its consent. On the other hand, rebroadcasting as defined in
Article 3 (g) of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of
Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, otherwise known as the 1961 Rome Convention,
of which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory, is the simultaneous broadcasting by one
broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.
The Director-General of the IPO found that PMSI is not engaged in the rebroadcasting
and thus cannot be considered to have infringed ABS-CBNs broadcasting rights and copyrights
because it does not have the responsibilities imposed upon broadcasting organizations, such as
ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own signals; PMSI merely carries such signals which
the viewers received in its unaltered form. PMSI does not produce, select, or determine the
programs to be shown in Channels 2 & 23. Thus, it does not pass itself off as the origin or author
of such programs.
Wherefore, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the CA sustaining the findings of
the Director-General of the IPO and dismissing the petition of the ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation is AFFIRMED.