FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR. and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC.

vs. HONORABLE RANKLIN M. DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA,

WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY
FRANCISCO

FACTS:
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder / grantee of
Certificate of Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of
Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977.
On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National
Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying
the shows format and style of presentation.
Upon complaint of petitioners, information for violation of PD
No. 49 was filed against private respondent Zosa together
with certain officers of RPN 9 for airing its a Date. It was
assigned to Branch 104 of RTC Quezon City.
Zosa sought review of the resolution of the Assistant City
Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.
On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin
M. Drilon reversed the Assistant City Prosecutors findings
and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case
against private respondents.
Petitioner Joaquin filed motion for reconsideration but such
was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether the format or mechanics or petitioners television
show is entitled to copyright protection.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the format of the show is not
copyrightable. Sec. 2 of PD No. 49, otherwise known as the
Decree on Intellectual Property, enumerates the classes of
work entitled to copyright protection. The provision is

substantially the same as Sec. 172 of the Intellectual

Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293). The format or
mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of
protected works in Sec. 2 of PD No. 49. For this reason, the
protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover
them.
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a
statutory right. It is a new independent right granted by the
statute and not simply a pre-existing right regulated by the
statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as
the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only
with respect to the subjects and by the person and on terms
and conditions specified in the statute.
The Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPIs copyright
covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and
Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in PD 49.

YES, the judge properly lifted the search warrants he

issued earlier.

20th Century Fox Film v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.

76649-51, August 19, 1988
I.

THE FACTS

Petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation sought the

assistance of the NBI in conducting searches and seizures in
connection with the NBIs anti-film piracy campaign.
Petitioner alleged that certain videotape outlets all over
Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and
renting out of copyrighted films in violation of PD No. 49 (the
old Intellectual Property Law).
The NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the
outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed
three (3) applications for search warrants against the video
outlets owned by the private respondents. The lower court
issued the desired search warrants. The NBI, accompanied by
the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized
the items described in the three warrants.
Private respondents later filed a motion to lift the search
warrants and release the seized properties, which was
granted by the lower court. Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was denied by the lower court. The CA
affirmed the trial court.
II.

THE ISSUE

Did the judge properly lift the search warrants he issued

earlier?
III. THE RULING
[The Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the
questioned decision and resolution of the CA.]

The lower court lifted the three (3) questioned search

warrants in the absence of probable cause that the private
respondents violated P.D. 49. NBI agents who acted as
witnesses during the application for search warrant did not
have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their
testimony, which was the alleged commission of the offense
of piracy by the private respondents. Only the petitioners
counsel who was also a witness during the application stated
that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes
owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken
from master tapes belonging to the petitioner. The lower
court lifted the warrants, declaring that the testimony of
petitioners counsel did not have much credence because the
master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown
to the court during the application.
The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted
films, from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was
necessary for the validity of search warrants against those
who have in their possession the pirated films. The
petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of
the master tapes at the time of application may not be
necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature
and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause
exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not
meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or
copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes
that it owns.
The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at
least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to
the copyrighted work. Hence, 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.

They also maintained that the presentation of the master

tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films
were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of
search warrants against those who have in their possession
the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that
the presentation of the master tapes at the time of
application may not be necessary as these would be merely
evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not
a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search
warrants is not meritorious.
S.C. Ruling:

20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO M. BARRETO, RAUL
SAGULLO and FORTUNE LEDESMA, respondents.
Petitioners claim:
The petitioner maintains that the lower court issued the
questioned search warrants after finding the existence of a
probable cause justifying their issuance. According to the
petitioner, the lower court arrived at this conclusion on the
basis of the depositions of applicant NBI's two witnesses
which were taken through searching questions and answers
by the lower court.
Respondents claim:
The respondent posits that the three questioned search
warrants against the private respondents should be lifted on
the ground that it acted on the application for the issuance of
the said search warrants and granted it on the
misrepresentations of applicant NBI and its witnesses that
infringement of copyright or a piracy of a particular film have
been committed.

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films

from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was
necessary for the validity of search warrants against those
who have in their possession the pirated films. The
petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of
the master tapes at the time of application may not be
necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature
and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause
exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not
meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or
copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes
that it owns.
The application for search warrants was directed against
video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the
unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films
belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49. The essence
of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least
substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the
copyrighted work. Hence, 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

intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing,

reproduction, sale, lease or disposition of videograms tapes
in the premises.
-According to petitioners, after complying with what the law
then required, the lower court determined that there was
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. It is
further argued that any search warrant so issued in
accordance with all applicable legal requirements is valid, for
the lower court could not possibly have been expected to
apply, as the basis for a finding of probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant in copyright infringement cases
involving videograms, a pronouncement which was not
existent at the time of such determination.
Respondents claim:

COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

SUNSHINE HOME VIDEO, INC. and DANILO A.
PELINDARIO, respondents.
Petitioners claim:
-Petitioners, thru counsel lodged a formal complaint with the
National Bureau of Investigation for violation of PD No. 49, as
amended, and sought its assistance in their anti-film piracy
drive. Acting on such request, NBI Senior Agent Lauro C.
Reyes applied for a search warrant with the court a quo
against Sunshine seeking the seizure, among others, of
pirated video tapes of copyrighted films all of which were
enumerated in a list attached to the application; and,
television sets, video cassettes and/or laser disc recordings
equipment and other machines and paraphernalia used or

Private respondents predictably argue in support of the ruling

of the Court of Appeals sustaining the quashal of the search
warrant by the lower court on the strength of that 20th
Century Fox ruling which, they claim, goes into the very
essence of probable cause. At the time of the issuance of the
search warrant involved here, although the 20th Century Fox
case had not yet been decided, Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution and Section 3, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure embodied the prevailing and governing
law on the matter. The ruling in 20th Century Fox was merely
an application of the law on probable cause. Hence, they
posit that there was no law that was retrospectively applied,
since the law had been there all along. To refrain from
applying the 20th Century Fox ruling, which had supervened
as a doctrine promulgated at the time of the resolution of
private respondents' motion for reconsideration seeking the
quashal of the search warrant for failure of the trial court to
require presentation of the master tapes prior to the issuance
of the search warrant, would have constituted grave abuse of
discretion.
S.C. Ruling:

There is merit in petitioners' impassioned and well-founded

argumentation. In fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said
case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the
master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of
search warrants should at most be understood to merely
serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of
probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there
is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and
the pirated copies. An objective and careful reading of the
decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than
that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and
inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement
cases. Judicial dicta should always be construed within the
factual matrix of their parturition, otherwise a careless
interpretation thereof could unfairly fault the writer with the
vice of overstatement and the reader with the fallacy of
undue generalization.
It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling in 20th
Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyright infringement
cases, the presentation of master tapes of the copyrighted
films is always necessary to meet the requirement of
probable cause and that, in the absence thereof, there can
be no finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant.

COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

SUNSHINE HOME VIDEO, INC. and DANILO A.
PELINDARIO, respondents.
In 1986, the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a
warrant against Jose Jinco (Jingco), owner of Showtime
Enterprises for allegedly pirating movies produced and
owned by Columbia Pictures and other motion picture
companies. Jingco filed a motion to quash the search warrant
but the same was denied in 1987. Subsequently, Jinco filed
an Urgent Motion to Lift the Search Warrant and Return the
Articles Seized. In 1989, the RTC judge granted the motion.
The judge ruled that based on the ruling in the 1988 case
of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs CA, before a search
warrant could be issued in copyright cases, the master copy
of the films alleged to be pirated must be attached in the
application for warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 20 th Century Fox ruling may be
applied retroactively in this case.
HELD: No. In 1986, obviously the 1988 case of 20 th Century
Fox was not yet promulgated. The lower court could not
possibly have expected more evidence from the VRB and
Columbia Pictures in their application for a search warrant
other than what the law and jurisprudence, then existing and
judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of
probable cause.
The Supreme Court also revisited and clarified the ruling in
the 20th Century Fox Case. It is evidently incorrect to suggest,
as the ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in
copyright infringement cases, the presentation of master
tapes of the copyright films is always necessary to meet the
requirement of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object
evidence, with the merit that in this class of evidence the
ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through
demonstration involving the direct use of the senses of the
presiding magistrate. Such auxiliary procedure, however,

does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary

evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of
evidence tending to prove the factum probandum, especially
where the production in court of object evidence would result
in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to is
evidentiary value.
In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding
the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the
copy-righted films for the validity of search warrants should
at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in
determining the existence of probable cause in copy-right
infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus
between the master tape and the pirated copies. An
objective and careful reading of the decision in said case
could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was
hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement
in all or similar copyright infringement cases

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v Philippine MultiMedia

System,
Inc.
Facts:
Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI), operator of Dream
Broadcsating System, delivers a digital direct-to-home (DTH)
television satellite to its subscribers all over the Philippines,
was granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act 8630
and was given a Provisional Authority by the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to install, operate and
maintain a nationwide DTH satellite service. When it
commenced operations, it offered as part of its program lineup, together with other paid premium program channels,
ABS-CBN Channels 2 and 23, NBN, Channel 4, ABC, Channel
5, GMA, Channel 7, RPN, Channel 9, and IBC, Channel 13,
pursuant to Memorandum Circular 4-08-88 which mandated
all cable television system operators, operating within the
Grade A and B CONTOURS to carry out the television
signals of the authorized television broadcast stations.
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), a licensed
television and radio broadcasting network, demanded PMSI
to cease and desist from rebroadcasting Channels 2 and
23. In its reply, PMSI contended that the rebroadcasting
was in accordance with the authority granted by NTC under
its obligations under NTC MC 4-08-88.
Negotiations were ensued between the parties in an effort to
reach a settlement; however, the same was terminated by
ABS-CBN allegedly due to PMSIs inability to ensure the

prevention
of
illegal
retransmission
and
further
rebroadcast of its signals, as well as the adverse effect of
the rebroadcasts on the business operations of its regional
television
stations.

does it claim to be the origin of the programs broadcasted by

the ABS-CBN. PMSI did not make and transmit on its own but
merely carried the existing signals of the ABS-CBN. When
PMSI subscribers view ABS-CBNs programs in Channels 2
and 23, they know that the origin thereof was the ABS-CBN.

ABS-CBN filed with the Intellectual Property Rights Office

(IPO) a complaint for Violation of Laws Involving Property
Rights, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
alleging that PMSIs unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels
2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright.
The TRO was granted by the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of
IPO. PMSI, pursuant to the TRO, suspended the
retransmission of PMSI of Channels 2 and 23 and likewise
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals granted the petition of PMSI and reversed
the decision of the BLA. ABS-CBN filed its appeal however it
was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, ABSCBNs
motion
for
reconsideration
was
denied.

The nature of broadcasting is to scatter the signals in its

widest area of coverage as possible. On this score, it may be
said that making public means that accessibility is
undiscriminating as long as it is within the range of the
transmitter and equipment of the broadcaster. That the
medium through which the PMSI carries the ABS-CBNs
signal, that is via satellite, does not diminish the fact that it
operates and functions as a cable television. It remains that
the PMSIs transmission of signals via its DTH satellite
television service cannot be considered within the purview of
broadcasting.

Issue:
1. Whether or not PMSI violated the Laws on Property Rights.
2. Whether or not the issuance MC 4-08-88 by the NTC is a
valid exercise of the police power of the State.
Held:
1. NO. PMSI did not violate the Laws on Property Rights
because it is not engaged in rebroadcasting Channels 2 and
23. Rebroadcasting has been defined as the simultaneous
broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the
broadcast of another broadcasting organization. It is also
the transmission by wireless means for the public reception
of sounds or of images or of representations thereof; such
transmission by satellite is also broadcasting where the
means for decrypting are provided to the public by the
broadcasting organization or with its consent. PMSI is only
engaged in the carrying of signals of ABS-CBN coming from
ABS-CBN and transmitting signals. PMSI is not the origin nor

Furthermore, there is no rebroadcasting on the part of the

PMSI of the ABS-CBMs programs on Channels 2 and 23, as
defined under the Rome Convention, which defines
rebroadcasting as the simultaneous broadcasting by one
broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another
broadcasting organization. ABS-CBN creates and transmits
its own signals; PMSI merely carries such signals which the
viewers receive in its unaltered form. PMSI does not produce,
select, or determine the programs to be shown in Channels 2
and 23. Likewise, it does not pass itself off as the origin or
author of such programs. Insofar as Channels 2 and 23 are
concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in accordance
with Memorandum Circular 04-08-88. With regard to its
premium channels, it buys the channels from content
providers and transmits on an as-is basis to its viewers.
Clearly, PMSI does not perform the functions of a
broadcasting organization; thus, it cannot be said that it is
engaged in rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
Therefore, the retransmission of ABS-CBNs signals by PMSI
which functions essentially as a cable television does not
constitute rebroadcasting in violation of the formers

intellectual

property

rights

under

the

IP

Code.

2. YES. The law on copyright is not absolute. 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.
The Must-Carry Rule is in consonance with the principles
and objectives underlying Executive Order No. 436, 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.
Moreover, radio and television waves are mere franchised
which may be reasonably burdened with some form of public

service. It is a privilege subject, among other things, to

amendment by Congress in accordance with the
constitutional provision that any such franchise or right
granted . . . shall be subject to amendment, alteration or
repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires.
The must carry rule is a valid exercise of the police power of
the State. It favors both broadcasting organizations and the
public. It prevents cable television companies from excluding
broadcasting organization especially in those places not
reached by signal. Also, the rule prevents cable television
companies from depriving viewers in far-flung areas the
enjoyment of programs available to city viewers. In fact, this
Office finds the rule more burdensome on the part of the
cable television companies. The latter carries the television
signals and shoulders the costs without any recourse of
charging. On the other hand, the signals that are carried by
cable television companies are dispersed and scattered by
the television stations and anybody with a television set is
free to pick them up.