ABS-CBN V.
GOZON undeniably attended by good faith and thus, serves
G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015
CASE DIGEST
Facts:
On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a
criminal complaint against respondent GMA for
(alleged) act of copyright infringement under
Sections 177 and
211 of the Intellectual Property Code
(RA 8293, as amended), because the respondent
aired footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW
Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq without the
petitioner's consent. ABS-CBN stated that it has an
agreement with Reuter's that the petition will
contribute news and content that it owns and makes
to Reuters in exchange of the latter's news and video
material, and
Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBN's materials cannot
be aired in the country.
The respondent was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN
live feeds. After it received the live feed of Angelo
Dela Cruz's arrival and homecoming from Reuter's, it
immediately aired the video from that news feed. The
respondent alleged that its news staff was not aware
that there was (a news embargo) agreement
between ABSCBN and Reuters. Respondent alleged
that it was not also aware that it aired petitioner's
footage.
Assistant City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza issued
resolution on 3 December 2004 which found probable
cause to indict Dela Pea-Reyes and Manalastas. The
respondents appealed the Prosccutor's resolution
before DOJ. DOJ Secretary Raul
M. Gonzalez ruled in favor of respondents in his
resolution dated 1 August 2005 and held that good
faith may be raised as a defense in the case.
Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra
issued a resolution on 29 June
2010 which reversed Sec. Gonzalez's resolution and
found probable cause to charge Dela Pea-Reyes,
Manalastas, as well as to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr.,
Flores, and Soho for violation of the Intellectual
Property Code (due to copyright infringement).
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 9
November 2010, which granted the
Petition for Certiorari to reverse and set aside DOJ
Sec. Alberto Agra's resolution and a prayer for
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or Writ
of
Preliminary Injunction.
The appellate court stated that the petitioner has
copyright of its news coverage, but respondents act
of airing five (5) seconds of the homecoming footage
without notice of the No Access Philippines
restriction of the live Reuter's video feed, was
to exculpate from criminal liability under the
Intellectual Property Code.
ISSUES
W/N there is probable cause to find respondents to be
held liable criminally for the case of copyright
infringement under the Intellectual Property Law (RA
8293, as amended)?
HELD
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED ABS-CBNs
petition and ordered RTC Q.C. Branch 93 to continue
with the criminal proceedings against Grace Dela
PeaReyes and John Oliver Manalastas due to
copyright infringement. The other respondents, Atty.
Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit Jr., Marissa L. Flores, and
Jessica A. Soho were held not liable for the (criminal)
act of copyright infringement. The Court held that
their mere membership in GMA7's Board of Directors
does not mean that they have knowledge, approval,
or participation in the criminal act of copyright
infringement as there is a need for their direct/active
participation in such act. Also, there was lack of proof
that they actively participated or exercised moral
ascendancy over Manalastas and Dela Cruz-Pena.
Contrary to GMAs contention, the Supreme Court
deemed GMA's mere act of rebroadcast of ABS-
CBNs news footage (arrival and homecoming of
OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq last 22 July
2004) for 2 mins and 40 secs.without the latter's
authority creates probable cause to find GMA's news
personnel Manalastas and Dela Pea-Reyes
criminally liable for violating provisions of Intellectual
Property Code (Section 216217 of RA 8293, as
amended) that imposes strict liability for copyright
infringement, since they have not been diligent in
their functions to prevent that footage from being
aired on television. They knew that there would be
consequences in carrying ABS-CBNs footage in their
broadcast which is why they allegedly cut the feed
from Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBNs logo and
reporter. The difference of an act mala in se and mala
prohibita was stated in the present case. Acts mala in
se requires presence of criminal intent and the
person's knowledge of the nature of his/her act, while
in acts mala prohibita, presence of criminal intent
and the person's knowledge is not necessary. The
Court also stated that Philippine laws on copyright
infringement does not require criminal intent (mens
rea) and does not support good faith as a defense.
Thus, the act of infringement and not the intent is the
one that causes the damage. It held that ABS-CBN's
video footage is copyrightable because it is under
audiovisual works and cinematographic works and
works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making
audiovisual recordings. It also stated that news or the
event itself is not copyrightable. The Court
differentiated idea and expression idea meant as a
form, the look or appearance of a thing while
expression is its reality or the external, perceptible
world of articulate sounds and visible written symbols
that others can understand. Thus, the Supreme Court
stated that only the expression of an idea is
protected by copyright, not the idea itself, citing the
US Supreme Court's decision in Baker vs Selden (101
U.S. 99). In the present case, expression applies to the
event captured and presented in a specific medium
via cinematography or processes analogous to it. The
Court also gave the four-fold test under the Fair Use
Doctrine (stated in section 185 of RA 8293 or the
Intellectual Property Code, as amended) to
determine fair use: a. The purpose and character of
the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational
purposes; b. The nature of the copyrighted work; c.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and d.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. Fair use, which is an
exception to copyright owners monopoly of the
work's usage, was defined by the Supreme Court as
privilege to use the copyrighted material in a
reasonable manner without the copyright owner's
consent or by copying the material's theme or idea
rather than its expression. It also said that
determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz
footage is subject to fair use is better left to the trial
court where the proceedings are currently pending.
Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs Court of
Appeals (2001)
In August 1989, Danlex Research Laboratories
petitioned before Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer (BPTTT) that it may be granted a
compulsory license for the use and manufacture of
the pharmaceutical product Cimetidine. Cimetidine
is useful as an antihistamine and in the treatment of
ulcers. Cimetidine is originally patented to Smith Kline
and French Laboratories, Ltd. in 1978, and the said
patent is still in force at the time of application by
Danlex Research.
The BPTTT granted the application of Danlex Research
together with a provision that Danlex Research should
be paying 2.5% of the net wholesale price as royalty
payment to Smith Kline. This was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.
Smith Kline assailed the grant as it argued, among
others, that the same is an invalid exercise of police
power because there is no overwhelming public
necessity for such grant considering that Smith Kline is
able to provide an adequate supply of it to satisfy the
needs of the Philippine market; that a provision in the
Philippine Patent Laws is violative of the Paris
Convention to which the Philippines is a signatory.
To explain the second contention, Smith Kline states
that the Paris Convention only allows compulsory
licensing if the original licensee (patent holder) has
failed to work on the patent; that therefore, the
provision in the Philippine Patent Laws which adds
other grounds for the granting of compulsory license
i.e. monopoly, is invalid and contrary to the Paris
Convention.
ISSUE: Whether or not Smith Kline is correct.
HELD: No. The granting is a valid exercise of police
power. Cimetidine is medicinal in nature, and
therefore necessary for the promotion of public health
and safety.
On the second contention, Section A(2) of Article 5
[of the Paris Convention] unequivocally and explicitly
respects the right of member countries to adopt
legislative measures to provide for the grant of
compulsory licenses to prevent abuses which might
result from the exercise of the exclusive rights
conferred by the patent. An example provided of
possible abuses is failure to work; however, as such,
is merely supplied by way of an example, it is plain
that the treaty does not preclude the inclusion of
other forms of categories of abuses. The legislative
intent in the grant of a compulsory license was not
only to afford others an opportunity to provide the
public with the quantity of the patented product, but
also to prevent the growth of monopolies. Certainly,
the growth of monopolies was among the abuses
which Section A, Article 5 of the Convention foresaw,
and which our Congress likewise wished to prevent in
enacting.