020. Columbia Pictures v.

Court of Appeals
6 October 1994/Third Division/Petitions for Review on Certiorari
G.R. Nos. 96597-99
Columbia Pictures, Inc.; Orion Pictures Corporation; Paramount Pictures Corporation; 20 th Century Fox
Film Corporation; United Artists Corporation; Universal City Studies, Inc.; Walt Disney Company; and
Warner Bros., Inc. petitioners
Court of Appeals, Tube Video Enterprises and Edward Cham, Blooming Rose Tape Center and Ma.
Jajorie T. Uy, and Video Channel and Lydia Nabong respondents
G.R. No. 97156
Same Petitioners
Court of Appeals, Foxs Video, Inc., and Alfredo Ongyangco respondents
Decision by J. Vitug, Digest by Pip

Short Version: Film companies complained to the NBI about videogram businesses allegedly pirating
their films. NBI applied obtained search warrants and conducted raids. As in the earlier case of 20th
Century Fox v. Court of Appeals, the RTC upon motion later quashed the warrants for the film companies
failure to present the master tapes of the films upon application for the warrants. The Supreme Court
affirmed the RTCs order, explaining that the first thing that must be established is whether the material
seized is pirated, hence the need for the master tapes.

Facts: On 7 April 1988, the NBI filed three applications for search warrants with the RTC of Pasig
against Tube Video Enterprises, Blooming Rose Tape Center, and the Video Channel, charging the
businesses and their proprietors with violation of Section 56 of P.D. 49. The NBI agent who applied stated
under oath that the defendants had in their possession pirated videotapes of copyrighted motion pictures,
as well as posters, advertising leaflets, stickers, and other documents and equipment used in their
unlawful videogram businesses.

The RTC of Pasig conducted a joint hearing where she made a personal examination of the NBI agent
and his witnesses. Finding probable cause for granting the application at the time, the court issued the
search warrants.

The proprietors filed their respective motions to quash, arguing (in essence) that there was no basis
for probable cause and that the films in question were not protected by P.D. 49, never having been
registering in the National Library pursuant to the requirement under the same law. The film companies
submitted their oppositions to the motions to quash. The proprietors replied and simultaneously moved
for the release of the items seized.

On 9 December 1988, the RTC found that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search
warrants and quashed them on the following grounds:

(1) The film companies were uncertain of their ownership of the titles subject of the seized video
tapes;
(2) The film companies did not comply with the requirement that the master tapes should be
presented during the application for search warrants; and
(3) The film companies could not seek protection of Philippine laws since they failed to comply with
the deposit and registration requirements of P.D. 49.

The court ordered the return of all the items seized by virtue of the warrants. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA) ruled that the film companies were certain of their ownership over the titles and that they
were still entitled to copyright protection under Philippine laws despite their failure to deposit and register
the titles with the National Library. However, the CA sustained the quashal of the warrants on the ground
that the film companies did not present the master tapes during the application for search warrants, thus
failing to establish the necessary linkage between the copyrighted material and the allegedly copied films.

The film companies filed a petition for review on certiorari. The CA ruled on a similar case later on,
involving the same film companies and having substantially the same facts and issues. That case was also
brought up before the Supreme Court on petition for review on certiorari. The Court consolidated the two
petitions.

Issue: Was the presentation of the master tapes during application necessary for the validity of the search
warrants? YES.

Ruling: Petition denied, CA affirmed.

Ratio: Citing 20th Century Fox v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that a basic requirement for the
validity of search warrants, in cases of this nature, is the presentation of the master tapes of the
copyrighted films from which pirated films are supposed to have been copied. Quoting verbatim
from that decision1, the Court explained that the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films
to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether
the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the
pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the
existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

The Court also agreed with the CA that what is punished under Section 56 of P.D. 49 is not just
the sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films but also the transfer or
causing to be transferred of any sound recording or motion picture or other audiovisual work.
Even assuming, as argued by the film companies, that the basic fact to be proved pertains only to the
sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes involved, the fact remains that there is need to establish
probable cause that the tapes being sold, leased, or distributed are pirated tapes, returning us to the
question of whether there was unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound recording or motion
picture or other audio visual work that has been recorded.

Voting: Romero and Melo, JJ., concur. Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., on leave.

1
Please see Pips earlier digest