1.

If you were the RTC judge, how would you sustain the jurisdiction of the RTC based on the
Administrative Circular? How would you resolve the issue of jurisdiction? Does the ruling regarding
jurisdiction on trademark apply to copyright? Is there another way of resolving jurisdiction?
The jurisdiction of courts is granted by law, according to Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which states that the Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion
the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
The law which defines the jurisdiction of the courts is Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129) which
is also known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act. This law was enacted on August 14, 1981. Under
Section 32 of BP 129, criminal cases concerning offenses with penalties not exceeding 6 years are within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Court. Under Section 33 of BP 129, as amended by the Republic Act 7691, civil cases
concerning property or interest the value of which does not exceed P100,000 if outside Metro Manila,
or P200,000 if within Metro Manila, are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
The Intellectual Property Code provides that jurisdiction shall be based on existing law as stated
in Section 225 which states that without prejudice to the provisions of Subsection 7.1(c), actions under
this Act shall be cognizable by the courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing law.
The Intellectual Property Code also states the offenses punishable and the penalties for these
offenses under Section 217. It states that any person infringing any right secured by provisions of Part IV
of this Act or aiding or abetting such infringement shall be guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment
of 1 to 3 years plus a fine ranging P50,000 to P150,000 for the first offense, imprisonment of 3 years and
1 day to 6 years plus a fine ranging from P150,000 to P500,000 for the second offense, and
imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 9 years plus a fine ranging from P500,000 to P1,500,000 for the
third and subsequent offenses.
All of these taken into consideration, it seems that for the first and second offenses, it is the
MTC/MeTC/MCTC that has jurisdiction. However, this may not be the case. It could be said that it is the
RTC which has jurisdiction over copyright infringement cases.
Paragraph 5, Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has
the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar,
and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. This shows that the Supreme Court is given the
constitutional power to provide for a practice and procedure in courts to ensure speedy disposition of
cases as long as this is uniform in all courts of same grade and does not modify substantive rights. The
Constitution thus provides that the Supreme Court has a rule-making power and could provide for rules
to ensure speedy disposition of cases.
It is to be noted that BP129 also provides in Section 23 that the Supreme Court may designate
certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic
relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-
judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in
the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Thus, it seems that in addition to the Constitutionally-given rule making power of the Supreme
Court, the law also provides that the Supreme Court can designate that certain branches of the Regional
Trial Courts can handle certain kinds of specialized cases in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice. It could thus be said that the cases under the Intellectual Property Code are
specialized cases. The Supreme Court has also released A.M. 03-03-03-SC designating Regional Trial
Courts as special commercial courts which would deal with the kinds of cases provided for under the
Intellectual Property Code. Furthermore, the Supreme Court released A.M. 10-0-10-SC which provides
for the rules of procedure to be observed by the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Commercial
Courts. Thus, the Supreme Court rules which transfer the jurisdiction over Intellectual Property cases are
in accordance with BP129 and the Constitution.
Furthermore, the rule that provisions should be harmonized in order to make each effective
(Valera vs. Tuason, G.R. No. L-1276, April 30, 1948) should also be taken into account. The ambiguity
provided by the law as to the jurisdiction over Intellectual Property cases should be construed to make
all rules operative. Thus, in order to harmonize the rules, the RTC should be given jurisdiction over
Intellectual Property cases.

2. Why enact an Anti-Camcording Act if theres already law on copyright infringement?

The Anti-Camcording Act punishes acts constituting unauthorized possession, use and/or control
of audiovisual recording devices in accordance with Section 3 of the same Act which states that it shall
be unlawful for an person, at a time when copyright subsists in a cinematographic film or other
audiovisual work of its soundtrack and without the authorization of the copyright owner or exclusive
licensee thereof, to use or attempt to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of
any performance in an exhibition facility of such cinematographic film or other audiovisual work or its
soundtrack, or an part thereof, have in his/her possession an audiovisual recording devic in an exhibition
facility with the intent of using or attempts to use the audiovisual recording device in an exhibition
facility with the intent of using or attempts to use the audiovisual recording device to transmit or make
a copy of any performance in the exhibition facility of such cinematographic film or other audiovisual
work or its soundtrack or any part thereof, or aid, abet or connive in the commission of the acts
prohibited.

In the Intellectual Property Code, under Section 217.3, those penalized for committing copyright
infringement are those persons who at the time when copyright subsists in a work has in his possession
an article which he knows, or ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of
selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale, or hire the article, distributing
the article for purpose of trade or for any other purpose to an extent that will prejudice the rights of the
copyright owner in the work, or trade exhibit of the article in the public. Also infringement would occur
when the bundle of rights enumerated in Section 177 which includes reproduction of the work or
substantial portion of the work, dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or
other transformation of the work, the first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work
by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership, rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or
cinematographic work, a work embodied in sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data
and other materials or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or
the copy which is the subject of the rental, public display of the original or a copy of the work, public
performance of the work, and other communication to the public of the work would be transgressed
by a person.

Thus, it could be seen that the Anti-Camcording Act and the copyright infringement in the
Intellectual Property Code provide for different violations. As can be seen in the law, the Anti-
Camcording Act punishes the act of bringing in recording devices and capturing or attempting to capture
audiovisual recordings, whereas the Intellectual Property Code punishes unauthorized reproduction,
distribution, rental, display, or other communication to the public. Thus, the Anti-Camcording Act adds
other violations which are the mere recording, bringing in of recording devices, or the use of audiovisual
devices inside an exhibition place, or the mere attempt thereof. Where the Intellectual Property Code
punishes mostly the communication of the copied material to the public, the Anti-Camcording Act
punishes the act of copying in an exhibition place, or an attempt to copy, or the act of bringing in
devices which can copy a work.

Furthermore, unlike the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Camcording Act does not provide
leeway as to intent or purpose of such recording. It provides in Section 6 that it shall not be a defense
that the transmission or making of the copy of the cinematographic film or other audiovisual work or its
soundtrack, or any part thereof, was for private or domestic purposes or in connection with a fair use
deal. It does not excuse personal use of recording or fair use of such recording. As long as there is an
act of recording, or attempt thereof, the person commits an offense in accordance with the Anti-
Camcording Act.

The Anti-Camcording Act thus covers violations and instances which are not covered by the
Intellectual Property Codes copyright infringement.