Banking Law/Restrictions on Bank Exposure to DOSRI

Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 166859, April 12, 2011
FACTS: Allegedly, Cojuangco purchased a block of 33,000,000 shares of SMC stock
through the 14 holding companies owned by the CIIF Oil Mills. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., served
as a public officer during the Marcos administration. During the period of his incumbency as a
public officer, he allegedly acquired assets, funds, and other property grossly and manifestly
disproportionate to his salaries, lawful income.
Cojuangco claims that he obtained the funds he claimed to have used in buying the 20%
SMC shares are not in fact various as he claims them to be. He says he obtained loans from
UCPB and advances from the CIIF Oil Mills.
The Republic, however, suggests that Cojuangco had been enabled to obtain loans by
the issuance of LOI 926 exempting the UCPB from the DOSRI and the Single Borrowers Limit
restrictions.
ISSUE: Whether or not the loans are DOSRI.
HELD: Firstly, as earlier pointed out, the Republic adduced no evidence on the significant
particulars of the supposed loan, like the amount, the actual borrower, the approving
official, etc. It did not also establish whether or not the loans were DOSRI or issued in violation
of the Single Borrowers Limit. Secondly, the Republic could not outrightly assume that
President Marcos had issued LOI 926 for the purpose of allowing the loans by the UCPB in favor
of Cojuangco. There must be competent evidence to that effect. And, finally, the loans,
assuming that they were of a DOSRI nature or without the benefit of the required approvals or
in excess of the Single Borrowers Limit, would not be void for that reason. Instead, the bank or
the officers responsible for the approval and grant of the DOSRI loan would be subject only to
sanctions under the law.




Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Pearl & Dean, Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc.
G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003
FACTS: Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc., a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
advertising display units referred to as light boxes, was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright
Registration . Pearl and Dean employed the services of Metro Industrial Services to
manufacture its advertising displays.
Pearl and Dean contracted with SMI for the lease and installation of the light boxes in
SM City North Edsa and SM Makati. However, the contract for SM Makati was later on
rescinded. Two years later, MIS offered to construct light boxes for Shoemarts chain of
stores. Ten (10) light boxes were subsequently fabricated by Metro Industrial for SMI and some
300 by EYD in 1991.
Pearl and Dean filed a case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair
competition and damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of patent infringement.
HELD: No.
For some reason or another, petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It
therefore acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention, if in fact it really
was. And because it had no patent, petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from
manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. In Creser Precision Systems, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, we held that there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been
issued, since whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from
the grant of patent. x x x (A)n inventor has no common law right to a monopoly of his invention.
He has the right to make use of and vend his invention, but if he voluntarily discloses it, such as
by offering it for sale, the world is free to copy and use it with impunity. A patent, however,
gives the inventor the right to exclude all others. As a patentee, he has the exclusive right of
making, selling or using the invention. On the assumption that petitioners advertising units
were patentable inventions, petitioner revealed them fully to the public by submitting the
engineering drawings thereof to the National Library.
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot
be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the
goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or
marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation
identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to
literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other
hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new,
involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.

Well-known Marks
246 Corporation, doing business under the name and style of ROLEX MUSIC LOUNGE vs.
Hon. Reynaldo B. Daway, Monster Rolex S.A. and Rolex Centre Phil.
G.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003
FACTS: Montres Rolex S.A. and Rolex Centre Phil., Limited, owners/proprietors of Rolex
and Crown Device, filed against 246 Corporation the instant suit for trademark infringement.
They alleged that sometime in July 1996, petitioner adopted and, since then, has been using
without authority the mark "Rolex" in its business name "Rolex Music Lounge" as well as in its
newspaper advertisements as "Rolex Music Lounge, KTV, Disco & Party Club."
ISSUE: Whether 246 Corporation is guilty of trademark infringement.
HELD: Under the old Trademark Law

where the goods for which the identical marks are
used are unrelated, there can be no likelihood of confusion and there is therefore no
infringement in the use by the junior user of the registered mark on the entirely different
goods.

This ruling, however, has been to some extent, modified by Section 123.1(f) of the
Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), which took effect on January 1, 1998. The
said section reads:
Sec. 123. Registrability. 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
x x x x x x x x x
(f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark
considered well-known in accordance with the preceding paragraph, which is registered
in the Philippines with respect to goods or services which are not similar to those with
respect to which registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation to
those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services,
and the owner of the registered mark: Provided, further, That the interest of the owner
of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use; (Emphasis supplied)
A junior user of a well-known mark on goods or services which are not similar to the goods or
services, and are therefore unrelated, to those specified in the certificate of registration of the
well-known mark is precluded from using the same on the entirely unrelated goods or services,
subject to the following requisites, to wit:
1. The mark is well-known internationally and in the Philippines. Under Rule 102 of the
Rules and Regulations on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names and Marked or
Stamped Containers,
17
in determining whether a mark is well known, the following
criteria or any combination thereof may be taken into account:
(a) the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark, in
particular, the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the
mark, including advertising or publicity and presentation, at fairs or exhibitions,
of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies;
(b) the market share in the Philippines and in other countries, of the goods
and/or services to which the mark applies;
(c) the degree of the inherent or acquired distinction of the mark;
(d) the quality-image or reputation acquired by the mark;
(e) the extent to which the mark has been registered in the world;
(f) the exclusivity of the registration attained by the mark in the world;
(g) the extent to which the mark has been used in the world;
(h) the exclusivity of use attained by the mark in the world;
(i) the commercial value attributed to the mark in the world;
(j) the record of successful protection of the rights in the mark;
(k) the outcome of litigations dealing with the issue of whether the mark is a
well-known mark; and
(l) the presence of absence of identical or similar marks validly registered for or
used on identical or similar goods or services and owned by persons other than
the person claiming that his mark is a well-known mark.
2. The use of the well-known mark on the entirely unrelated goods or services would
indicate a connection between such unrelated goods or services and those goods or
services specified in the certificate of registration in the well known mark. This
requirement refers to the likelihood of confusion of origin or business or some business
connection or relationship between the registrant and the user of the mark.
3. The interests of the owner of the well-known mark are likely to be damaged. For
instance, if the registrant will be precluded from expanding its business to those
unrelated good or services, or if the interests of the registrant of the well-known mark
will be damaged because of the inferior quality of the good or services of the user.
Section 123.1(f) is clearly in point because the Music Lounge of petitioner is entirely unrelated
to respondents business involving watches, clocks, bracelets, etc. However, the Court cannot
yet resolve the merits of the present controversy considering that the requisites for the
application of Section 123.1(f), which constitute the kernel issue at bar, clearly require
determination facts of which need to be resolved at the trial court. The existence or absence of
these requisites should be addressed in a full blown hearing and not on a mere preliminary
hearing. The respondent must be given ample opportunity to prove its claim, and the petitioner
to debunk the same.

Doctrine of Fair Use
ABS-CBN Broadcastiong Corporation vs. Philippine Multi-media System, Inc., et. Al.
G.R. Nos. 175769-70, January 19, 2009
FACTS: 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. It was granted a
legislative franchise and was given a Provisional Authority by the NTC to install, operate and
maintain a nationwide DTH satellite service. When it commenced operations, it offered as part
of its program line-up ABS-CBN Channels 2 and 23, NBN, Channel 4, ABC Channel 5, GMA
Channel 7, RPN Channel 9, and 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 and 23.
Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties in an effort to reach a settlement;
however, the negotiations were terminated by ABS-CBN allegedly due to PMSIs inability to
ensure the prevention of illegal retransmission and further rebroadcast of its signals.
ABS-CBN filed with the IPO a complaint for copyright infringement.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of copyright infringement.
HELD: No.
The carriage of ABS-CBNs signals by virtue of the must-carry rule in Memorandum
Circular No. 04-08-88 is under the direction and control of the government though the NTC
which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to supervise, regulate and control
telecommunications and broadcast services/facilities in the Philippines. The imposition of the
must-carry rule is within the NTCs power to promulgate rules and regulations, as public safety
and interest may require, to encourage a larger and more effective use of communications,
radio and television broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition among
private entities in these activities whenever the Commission finds it reasonably feasible. As
correctly observed by the Director-General of the IPO:
Accordingly, the Must-Carry Rule under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the
foregoing category of limitations on copyright. This Office agrees with the Appellant [herein
respondent PMSI] that the Must-Carry Rule is in consonance with the principles and
objectives underlying Executive Order No. 436,
[28]
to wit:
The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of news,
information, education, sports event and entertainment programs other than
those provided for by mass media and afforded television programs to attain a
well informed, well-versed and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their
socio-economic growth:
WHEREAS, cable television (CATV) systems could support or
supplement the services provided by television broadcast
facilities, local and overseas, as the national information highway
to the countryside.
[29]

Indeed, intellectual property protection is merely a means towards the end of making
society benefit from the creation of its men and women of talent and genius. This is the
essence of intellectual property laws, and it explains why certain products of ingenuity that are
concealed from the public are outside the pale of protection afforded by the law. It also
explains why the author or the creator enjoys no more rights than are consistent with public
welfare.