Laktaw vs.

Paglinawan
44 Phil. 855 (1918)
G.R. No. L-11937

Doctrine

Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property:
Nobody may reproduce another person's work without the
owner's consent, even merely to annotate or add anything to it, or improve any edition thereof.

Facts

Laktaw is the registered owner and author of a literary work entitled Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary)
published in the City of Manila in 1889 by the printing establishment La Opinion.
Paglinawan without the consent of Laktaw,
reproduced said literary work, improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work published by him and entitled
DiccionariongKastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary).

The act of Pagliwanan is a violation of article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, caused irreparable
injuries to Laktaw who was surprised when, on publishing his new work entitled Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (Tagalog-Spanish
Dictionary) he learned of the fact, and (4) that the damages occasioned to him by the publication of Paglinawan's work
amounted to $10,000. Laktaw prayed the court to order the Paglinawan to withdraw from sale all stock of the work of
Paglinawan to pay him the sum of $10,000, with costs.

Paglinawan in his answer denied generally each and every allegation of the complaint and prayed the court to absolve him from
the complaint.

Issue

Whether or not Paglinawan violated Article 7 of the Intellectual Property Law (1879)?

Held

Yes, Paglinawan violated Article 7 of Intellectual Property Law.

It is not necessary 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 something to it, or
improve any edition thereof.

As early as 1918, the Supreme Court enunciated that a person who published a Spanish-Tagalog dictionary and copied the
equivalents, definitions and different meanings given in another author’s Spanish-Tagalog dictionary, although making some
additions of his own and some unimportant changes in the examples to illustrate the meanings of the words, has violated the
intellectual property rights of other author. The Supreme Court reasoned that although words are not the property of anybody,
their definitions, the example that explain their sense and the manner of expressing their different meanings, may constitute
special work.