Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

TodayisSaturday,July01,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L11937April1,1918

PEDROSERRANOLAKTAW,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
MAMERTOPAGLINAWAN,defendantappellee.

PerfectoGabrielforappellant.
FelixFerrerandCrossfieldandO'Brienforappellee.

ARAULLO,J.:

InthecomplaintpresentedintheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheCityofManilaonFebruary20,1915,itwasalleged:
(1)Thattheplaintiffwas,accordingtothelawsregulatingliteraryproperties,theregisteredownerandauthorofa
literary work entitled DiccionarioHispanoTagalog (SpanishTagalog Dictionary) published in the City of Manila in
1889bytheprintingestablishmentLaOpinion,andacopyofwhichwasattachedtothecomplaint,asExhibitA(2)
thatthedefendant,withouttheconsentoftheplaintiff,reproducedsaidliterarywork,improperlycopiedthegreater
partthereofintheworkpublishedbyhimandentitledDiccionariongKastilaTagalog(SpanishTagalogDictionary),a
copyofwhichwasalsoattachedtothecomplaintasExhibitB(3)thatsaidactofthedefendant,whichisaviolation
ofarticle7oftheLawofJanuary10,1879,onIntellectualProperty,causedirreparableinjuriestotheplaintiff,who
wassurprisedwhen,onpublishinghisnewworkentitledDiccionarioTagalogHispano(TagalogSpanishDictionary)
helearnedofthefact,and(4)thatthedamagesoccasionedtotheplaintiffbythepublicationofdefendant'swork
amountedto$10,000.Theplaintiffthereforeprayedthecourttoorderthedefendanttowithdrawfromsaleallstock
oftheworkhereinidentifiedasExhibitBandtopaytheplaintiffthesumof$10,000,withcosts.

Thedefendantinhisanswerdeniedgenerallyeachandeveryallegationofthecomplaintandprayedthecourtto
absolvehimfromthecomplaint.Aftertrialandtheintroductionofevidencebybothparties,thecourtonAugust20,
1915, rendered judgment, absolving the defendant from the complaint, but without making any special
pronouncementastocosts.Theplaintiffmovedforanewtrialonthegroundthatthejudgmentwasagainstthelaw
andtheweightoftheevidence.Saidmotionhavingbeenoverruled,plaintiffexceptedtotheorderoverrulingit,and
appealedthecasetotheSupremeCourtuponabillofexceptions.

Thegroundofthedecisionappealedfromisthatacomparisonoftheplaintiff'sdictionarywiththatofthedefendant
doesnotshowthatthelatterisanimpropercopyoftheformer,whichhasbeenpublishedandofferedforsalebythe
plaintiffforabouttwentyfiveyearsormore.Forthisreasonthecourtheldthattheplaintiffhadnorightofactionand
thattheremedysoughtbyhimcouldnotbegranted.

Theappellantcontendsthatcourtbelowerredinnotdeclaringthatthedefendanthadreproducedtheplaintiff'swork
andthatthedefendanthadviolatedarticle7oftheLawofJanuary10,1879,onIntellectualProperty.

Saidarticleprovides:

Nobodymayreproduceanotherperson'sworkwithouttheowner'sconsent,evenmerelytoannotateoradd
anythingtoit,orimproveanyeditionthereof.

Therefore, in order that said article may be violated, it is not necessary, as the court below seems to have
understood, that a work should be an improper copy of another work previously published. It is enough that
another's work has been reproduced without the consent of the owner, even though it be only to annotate, add
somethingtoit,orimproveanyeditionthereof.

UponmakingacarefulandminutecomparisonofExhibitA,thedictionarywrittenandpublishedbytheplaintiff,and
Exhibit B, written and published by the defendant, and, taking into account the memorandum (fols. 55 to 59)
presented by the defendant, in which he enumerates the words and terms which, according to him, are in his
dictionarybutnotinthatofthatoftheplaintiff,andviceversa,andtheequivalentsordefinitionsgivenbytheplaintiff,
as well as the new Tagalog words which are in the dictionary of the defendant but not in that of the plaintiff and
consideringthenotes,ExhibitC,firstseries,presentedbytheplaintiff,inwhichthetermscopiedbythedefendant
from the plaintiff's dictionary are enumerated in detail and in relation to each letter of the alphabet and which the
plaintiff'sownwordsandtermsaresetforth,withasummary,atthefootofeachgroupofletters,whichshowsthe
numberofinitialSpanishwordscontainedinthedefendant'sdictionary,thewordsthatarehisownandthefactthat
the remaining ones are truly copied from the plaintiff's dictionary considering all of these facts, we come to a
conclusioncompletelydifferentandcontrarytothatofthetrialcourt,forsaidevidenceclearlyshows:

1. That, of the Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, Exhibit B, which correspond to each letter of the
alphabet,thosethatareenumeratedbelowhavebeencopiedandreproducedfromtheplaintiff'sdictionary,withthe
exceptionofthosethatarestatedtobedefendant'sown.

Letter Words Defendant's


own

"A" 1,184 231

"B" 364 28

"C" 660 261

"CH" 76 10

"D" 874 231

"E" 880 301

"F" 383 152

"G" 302 111

"H" 57 64

"I" 814 328

"J" 113 25

"K" 11 11

"L" 502 94

"LL" 36 2

"M" 994 225

"N" 259 53

"" 6 2

"O" 317 67

"P" 803 358

"Q" 84 11

"R" 847 140

"S" 746 118

"T" 591 147


"U" 107 15

"V" 342 96

"X" 6 6

"Y" 24 4

"Z" 73 17
______ _____

23,560 3,108

Therefore,ofthe23,560Spanishwordsinthedefendant'sdictionary,afterdeducting17wordscorrespondingtothe
lettersKandX(fortheplaintiffhasnowordscorrespondingtothem),only3,108wordsarethedefendant'sown,or,
what is the same thing, the defendant has added only this number of words to those that are in the plaintiff's
dictionary,hehavingreproducedorcopiedtheremaining20,452words.

2.ThatthedefendantalsoliterallyreproducedandcopiedfortheSpanishwordsinhisdictionary,theequivalents,
definitionsanddifferentmeaningsinTagalog,giveninplaintiff'sdictionary,havingreproduced,asto somewords,
everythingthatappearsintheplaintiff'sdictionaryforsimilarSpanishwords,althoughastosomehemadesome
additionsofhisown.Saidcopiesandreproductionsarenumerousasmaybeseen,bycomparingbothdictionaries
andusingasaguideorindexthedefendant'smemorandumandnotes,firstseries,ExhibitC,inwhich,astoeach
word,thesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthemaresetforthindetail.

3.Thattheprinter'serrorsintheplaintiff'sdictionaryastotheexpressionofsomewordsinSpanishaswellastheir
equivalents in Tagalog are also reproduced, a fact which shows that the defendant, in preparing his dictionary,
literallycopiedthoseSpanishwordsandtheirmeaningsandequivalentsinTagalogfromtheplaintiff'sdictionary.

Thetrialcourthaschosenatrandom,asisstatedinthejudgmentappealedfrom,somewordsfromsaiddictionaries
inmakingthecomparisononwhichitsconclusionisbased,andconsequentlytheconclusionreachedbyitmustbe
inaccurateandnotwellfounded,becausesaidcomparisonwasnotcomplete.

Insaidjudgmentsomewordsofthedefendant'sdictionaryaretranscribed,theequivalentsandmeaningsofwhich
inTagalogareexactlythesameasthosethataregivenintheplaintiff'sdictionary,withtheexception,astosomeof
them,ofonlyoneacceptation,whichisthedefendant'sownproduction.Andwithrespecttotheexamplesusedby
thedefendantinhisdictionary,which,accordingtothejudgment,arenotcopiedfromtheplaintiff'sthejudgment
referringtotheprepositiona(to),inTagalogsaitmustbenotedthatthedefendant,ingivinginhisdictionaryan
example of said preposition, uses the expression "voy a Tayabas" (I am going to Tayabas) instead of "voy a
Bulacan"(IamgoingtoBulacan),astheplaintiffdoesinhisdictionary,orwhatisthesamething,thatonespeaksof
BulacanwhiletheotherspeaksofTayabas.Thisdoesnotshowthattherewasnoreproductionorcopyingbythe
defendantoftheplaintiffswork,butjusttheopposite,forhewhointendstoimitatetheworkofanother,triestomake
itappearinsomemannerthatthereissomedifferencebetweentheoriginalandtheimitationandintheexample
referredto,withrespecttotheprepositiona(to),thatdissimilarityastotheprovincedesignatedseemstoeffectthe
samepurpose.

In the judgment appealed from, the court gives one to understand that the reproduction of another's dictionary
withouttheowner'sconsentdoesnotconstituteaviolationoftheLawofIntellectualPropertyforthecourt'sideaofa
dictionaryisstatedinthedecisionitself,asfollows:

Dictionarieshavetobemadewiththeaidofothers,andtheyareimprovedbytheincreaseofwords.What
maybesaidofapasturegroundmaybesaidalsoofadictionary,i.e.,thatitshouldbecommonpropertyfor
allwhomaydesiretowriteanewdictionary,andthedefendanthascometothispasturegroundandtaken
whateverheneededfromitintheexerciseofaperfectright.

Suchideaisveryerroneous,especiallyinrelationtotheLawofIntellectualProperty.DanvillayColladotheauthor
oftheLawofJanuary10,1879,onIntellectualProperty,whichwasdiscussedandapprovedintheSpanishCortes,
inhisworkentitledLaPropiedadIntelectual(page362,1sted.)stateswithrespecttodictionariesandinrelationto
article7ofsaidlaw:

The protection of the law cannot be denied to the author of a dictionary, for although words are not the
property of anybody, their definitions, the example that explain their sense, and the manner of expressing
theirdifferentmeanings,mayconstituteaspecialwork.Onthispoint,thecorrectionalcourtoftheSeineheld,
onAugust16,1864,thatadictionaryconstitutesproperty,althoughsomeofthewordsthereinareexplained
bymeredefinitionsexpressedinafewlinesandsanctionedbyusage,providedthatthegreaterpartofthe
otherwordscontainnewmeaningsnewmeaningswhichevidentlymayonlybelongedtothefirstpersonwho
publishedthem.

Therefore,theplaintiff,PedroSerrano,cannotbedeniedthelegalprotectionwhichheseeks,andwhichisbasedon
the fact that the dictionary published by him in 1889 is his property said property right being recognized and
havingbeengrantedbyarticle7,inconnectionwitharticle2,ofsaidlawandonthefurtherfactthatsaidwork
wasreproducedbythedefendantwithouthispermission.

ThislawwaspublishedintheGacetadeMadridonJanuary12,1879.IttookeffectintheseIslandssixmonthsafter
its promulgation or publication, as provided in article 56 thereof. The body of rules for the execution of said law
havingbeenapprovedbyroyaldecreeofSeptember3,1880,andpublishedintheGacetadeMadridonSeptember
6, 1880 and extended to the Philippine Islands by royal decree of May 5, 1887, it was in turn published in the
GacetadeManila,withtheapprovaloftheGovernorGeneraloftheIslands,onJune15,1887.SaidlawofJanuary
10,1879,andtherulesforitsapplication,werethereforeinforceintheseIslandswhentheplaintiff'sdictionarywas
editedandpublishedin1889.

Itappearsfromtheevidencethatalthoughtheplaintiffdidnotintroduceatthetrialthecertificateofregistrationofhis
propertyrightstosaidworkwhich,accordingtosaidrules,waskeptintheCentralGovernmentoftheseIslands,and
wasissuedtohimin1890,thesamehavingbeenlostduringtherevolutionagainstSpain,andnotracerelativeto
theissuanceofsaidcertificatebeingobtainableintheDivisionofArchivesoftheExecutiveBureauonaccountof
thelossofthecorrespondingrecords,yetasinthefirstpageofsaiddictionarythepropertyrightoftheplaintiffwas
reserved by means of the words "Es propiedad del autor" (All rights reserved), taken in connection with the
permissiongrantedhimbytheGovernorGeneralonNovember24,1889,toprintandpublishsaiddictionary,after
anexaminationthereofbythepermanentcommitteeofcensors,whichexaminationwasmade,andthenecessary
licensegrantedtohim,thesefactsconstitutesufficientproof,underthecircumstancesofthecase,astheyhavenot
been overcome by any evidence on the part of the defendant, showing that said plaintiff did not comply with the
requirementsofarticle36ofsaidlaw,whichwastheprerequisitetotheenjoymentofthebenefitsthereofaccording
totheprecedingarticles,amongwhichisarticle7,whichisallegedinthecomplainttohavebeenviolatedbythe
defendant.

Even considering that said Law of January 10, 1879, ceased to operate in these Islands, upon the termination of
SpanishsovereigntyandthesubstitutionthereofbythatoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,therightoftheplaintiffto
invokesaidlawinsupportoftheactioninstitutedbyhiminthepresentcasecannotbedisputed.Hispropertyrightto
the work Diccionario HispanoTagalog (SpanishTagalog Dictionary), published by him and edited in 1889, is
recognized and sanctioned by said law, and by virtue thereof, he had acquired a right of which he cannot be
deprivedmerelybecausethelawisnotinforcenoworisofnoactualapplication.Thisconclusionisnecessaryto
protectintellectualpropertyrightsvestedafterthesovereigntyofSpainwassupersededbythatoftheUnitedStates.
ItwassoheldsupersededbythatoftheUnitedStates.ItwassoheldintheTreatyofParisofDecember10,1898,
between Spain and the United States, when it declared in article 13 thereof that the rights to literary, artistic, and
industrialpropertiesacquiredbythesubjectofSpainintheIslandofCubaandinPuertoRicoandthePhilippines
andothercededterritories,atthetimeoftheexchangeoftheratificationofsaidTreaty,shallcontinuetoberespect.

In addition to what has been said, according to article 428 of the Civil Code, the author of a literary, scientific, or
artisticwork,hastherighttoexploititanddisposethereofatwill.Inrelationtothisright,thereexiststheexclusive
right of the author, who is the absolute owner of his own work, to produce it, according to article 2 of the Law of
January10,1879,andconsequently,nobodymayreproduceit,withouthispermission,noteventoannotateoradd
somethingtoit,ortoimproveanyeditionthereof,accordingtoarticle7ofsaidlaw.Manresa,inhiscommentarieson
article429oftheCivilCode(vol.3,p.633,3ded.)saysthattheconcretestatementoftherighttoliteraryproperties
isfoundinthelegaldoctrineaccordingtowhichnobodymayreproduceanotherperson'swork,withouttheconsent
ofhisowner,oreventoannotateoraddsomethingtoitortoimproveanyeditionthereof.Andonpage616ofsaid
volume,Manresasaysthefollowing:

Hewhowritesabook,orcarvesastatue,ormakesaninvention,hastheabsoluterighttoreproduceorsellit,
justastheowneroflandhastheabsoluterighttosellitoritsfruits.Butwhiletheownerofland,bysellingit
and its fruits, perhaps fully realizes all its economic value, by receiving its benefits and utilities, which are
presented, for example, by the price, on the other hand the author of a book, statue or invention, does not
reap all the benefits and advantages of his ownproperty by disposing of it, for the most important form of
realizingtheeconomicadvantagesofabook,statueorinvention,consistsintherighttoreproduceitinsimilar
orlikecopies,everyoneofwhichservestogivetothepersonreproducingthemalltheconditionswhichthe
original requires in order to give the author the full enjoyment thereof. If the author of a book, after its
publication,cannotpreventitsreproductionbyanypersonwhomaywanttoreproduceit,thentheproperty
rightgrantedhimisreducedtoaveryinsignificantthingandtheeffortmadeintheproductionofthebookis
nowayrewarded.

IndeedthepropertyrightrecognizedandprotectedbytheLawofJanuary10,1879,onIntellectualProperty,would
beillusoryif,byreasonofthefactthatsaidlawisnolongerinforceasaconsequenceofthechangeofsovereignty
intheseIslands,theauthorofawork,whohastheexclusiverighttoreproduceit,couldnotpreventanotherperson
fromsodoingwithouthisconsent,andcouldnotenforcethisrightthroughthecourtsofjusticeinordertoprosecute
theviolatorofthislegalprovisionandthedefrauderorusurperofhisright,forhecouldnotobtainthefullenjoyment
ofthebookorotherwork,andhispropertyrightthereto,whichisrecognizedbylaw,wouldbereduced,asManresa
says,toaninsignificantthing,ifheshouldhavenomorerightthanthatofsellinghiswork.

The reproduction by the defendant without the plaintiff's consent of the Diccionario HispanoTagalog (Spanish
Tagalog Dictionary), published and edited in the City of Manila in 1889, by the publication of the Diccionariong
KastilaTagalog (SpanishTagalog Dictionary), published in the same city and edited in the press El Progreso in
1913,asappearsfromExhibitB,whichisattachedtothecomplaint,hascausedtheplaintiff,accordingtothelatter,
damagesinthesumof$10,000.Itistruethatitcannotbedeniedthatthereproductionoftheplaintiff'sbookbythe
defendanthascauseddamagestotheformer,buttheamountthereofhasnotbeendeterminedatthetrial,forthe
statementoftheplaintiffastotheproceedshewouldhaverealizedifhehadprintedin1913thenumberofcopiesof
hisworkwhichhestatedinhisdeclarationafactwhichhedidnotdobecausethedefendanthadreproducedit
wasnotcorroboratedinanywayatthetrialandisbaseduponmerecalculationsmadebytheplaintiffhimselffor
which reason no pronouncement can be made in this decision as to the indemnification for damages which the
plaintiffseekstorecover.

Theplaintiffhavingprayed,notforapermanentinjunctionagainstthedefendant,astheplaintiffhimselfinhisbrief
erroneously states, but for a judgment ordering the defendant to withdraw from sale all stock of his work
DiccionariongKastilaTagalog(SpanishTagalogDictionary),ofwhichExhibitBisacopy,andthesuitinstitutedby
saidplaintiffbeingproper,wereversethejudgmentappealedfromandorderthedefendanttowithdrawfromsale,
as prayed for in the complaint, all stock of his work abovementioned, and to pay the costs of first instance. We
makenospecialpronouncementastothecostsofthisinstance.Soordered.

Arellano,C.J.,Torres,andStreet,JJ.,concur.
Carson,andMalcolm,JJ.,concurintheresult.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi