SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999.]

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

petitioners, vs . HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA,
WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO ,
respondents.

Medel Macam del Rosario Collado and Polines for petitioners.

Angelo Medina for F. Medina, Jr.
Atienza, Tabora, del Rosario & Salvador for W. Esposo.
Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. for Casey Francisco.
De Borja Medialdea Ata Bello Guevarra & Serapio for G. Zosa.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certi cate of

Copyright No. M922 dated January 28, 1971 of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired
from 1970 to 1977. In 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its certi cate of copyright specifying the show's format and style
presentation. In 1991, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN 9 an
episode of It's a Date . He immediately protested the airing of the show through a letter
sent to Grabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL Productions, Inc., the
producer of It's a Date . Petitioner Joaquin informed respondent, Zosa of a copyright to
Rhoda and Me and demanded that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date . Respondent Zosa
apologized to Joaquin, but continued airing the show. Zosa also sought to register IXL's
copyright to the rst episode of It's a Date for which a certi cate of copyright was issued
by the National Library on August 14, 1991. With these developments, petitioners herein
led a complaint against Zosa and other RPN Channel 9 o cers as a result of which an
information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was led before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City. Zosa appealed to the Department of Justice. The Secretary of Justice reversed the
prosecutor's ndings and directed the dismissal of the case. Petitioner Joaquin led a
motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Secretary of Justice. Hence, this
petition. Both public and private respondents maintained that petitioners failed to
establish the existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the copyrighted
master videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contended that BJPl's copyright covers only a
specific episode of Rhosa and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows
were not covered by the copyright protection under P.D. No. 49.
The Supreme Court ruled that BJPI's copyright covered audio-visual recordings of
every episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in P.D. No.
49. The copyright, however, does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating
game show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright,
the investigating prosecutor should have been given the opportunity to compare the
videotapes of the two shows. Mere description by words of the general format of the two
dating game shows is insu cient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause. The petition
was therefore dismissed. SEIDAC

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION;

AUTHORITY OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. — A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the
state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal actions. He
is, however, subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice. Thus, Rule 112, Sec. 4 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides: SEC. 4. Duty of investigating scal. — If the
investigating scal nds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the
resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown
by the record, an authorized o cer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the
complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity
to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the
complaint. In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city
scal or chief state prosecutor within ve (5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take
appropriate action thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, immediately
informing the parties of said action. No complaint or information may be led or
dismissed by an investigating scal without the prior written authority approval of the
provincial or city scal or chief state prosecutor. Where the investigating assistant scal
recommends the dismissal of the case but his ndings are reversed by the provincial or
city scal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter
may, by himself, le the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any
other assistant scal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary
investigation. If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice reverses the
resolution of the provincial or city scal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the scal
concerned to le the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary
investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information. In
reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from
considering errors, although unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether there is
probable cause for ling cases in court. He must make his own nding of probable cause
and is not con ned to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary investigation.
Moreover, his ndings are not subject to review unless shown to have been made with
grave abuse.
2. COMMERCIAL LAW; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW; COPYRIGHT;
CONSTRUED. — Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a
new or 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
persons, and on terms and conditions speci ed in the statute. Since . . . copyright in
published works is purely a statutory creation, a copyright may be obtained only for a work
falling within the statutory enumeration or description. Regardless of the historical
viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled in the United States that there is no copyright except
that which is both created and secured by act of Congress. . . . P.D. No. 49, Section 2, in
enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to nished works and not to concepts.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described,
explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES provides: SEC. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. —
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under
this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery
or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a
work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of
press information; or any o cial text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well
as any official translation thereof.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FORMAT OR MECHANICS OF A TELEVISION SHOW IS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF PROTECTED WORKS. — To begin with, the format of a show is
not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, otherwise known as the DECREE ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright
protection, to wit: Section 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of
creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works: (A) Books,
including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers; (B)
Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspaper. (C) Lectures, sermons, addresses,
dissertations prepared for oral delivery; (D) Letters; (E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical
compositions; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows, the acting form
of which is xed in writing or otherwise; (F) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other
works of art; models or designs for works of art; (H) Reproductions of work of art; (I)
Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not
patentable, and other works of applied art; (J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts; (K)
Drawings or plastic works of a scienti c or technical character; (L) Photographic works
and works produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides; (M)
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography
or any process for making audio-visual recordings; (N) Computer programs; (O) Prints,
pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels, tags, and box wraps; (P) Dramatizations,
translations, adaptions, abridgements, arrangements and other alterations of literary,
musical or artistic works or of works of the Philippine government as herein de ned, which
shall be protected as provided in Section 8 of this Decree; (Q) Collections of literary,
scholarly, or artistic works or of works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by
reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations,
the same to be protected as such in accordance with Section 8 of this Decree; (R) Other
literary, scholarly, scienti c and artistic works. This provision is substantially the same as
Section 172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No.
8293). The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected
works in Section 2 of P.D. No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law
cannot be extended to cover them. ETDAaC

DECISION

MENDOZA , J : p

This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners seek to annul the resolution of the
Department of Justice, dated August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27854, entitled
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "Gabriel Zosa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Francisco Joaquin, Jr .," and its
resolution, dated December 3, 1992, denying petitioner Joaquin's motion for
reconsideration. LLphil

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certi cate 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 show's format and style of presentation.
On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr.,
president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was produced by
IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to private respondent
Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL, informing Zosa that BJPI had a
copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date.
In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to petitioner
Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement. IXL, however,
continued airing It's a Date , prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second letter on July
25, 1991 in which he reiterated his demand and warned that, if IXL did not comply, he
would endorse the matter to his attorneys for proper legal action.
Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to the rst
episode of It's a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a certi cate of
copyright on August 14, 1991.
Upon complaint by petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was led
against private respondent Zosa together with certain o cers of RPN Channel 9, namely,
William Esposo, Felipe Medina, and Casey Francisco, in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-27854 and assigned to Branch 104
thereof. However, private respondent Zosa sought a 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 Prosecutor's ndings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the
case against private respondents. 1
Petitioner Joaquin led a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by
respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3, 1992. Hence, this petition. Petitioners
contend that:
1. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction when he invoked non-presentation of the master
tape as being fatal to the existence of probable cause to prove
infringement, despite the fact that private respondents never raised
the same as a controverted issue.
2. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction when he arrogated unto himself the determination
of what is copyrightable — an issue which is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the regional trial court to assess in a proper
proceeding.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Both public and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to establish the
existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the copyrighted master
videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contend that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers only a
specific episode of Rhoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows
are not covered by copyright protection under P. D. No. 49.
Non-Assignment of Error
Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the copyrighted master videotape of the
television show Rhoda and Me was not raised in issue by private respondents during the
preliminary investigation and, therefore, it was error for the Secretary of Justice to reverse
the investigating prosecutor's finding of probable cause on this ground.
A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is
given by law the power to direct and control criminal actions. 2 He is, however, subject
to the control of the Secretary of Justice. Thus, Rule 112, §4 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, provides:
SEC. 4. Duty of investigating scal . — If the investigating scal nds
cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the
record, an authorized o cer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was
informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he
was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall
recommend dismissal of the complaint.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or
city scal or chief state prosecutor within ve (5) days from his resolution. The
latter shall take appropriate action thereon within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, immediately informing the parties of said action.
No complaint or information may be led or dismissed by an investigating
scal without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city scal
or chief state prosecutor.

Where the investigating assistant scal recommends the dismissal of the

case but his ndings are reversed by the provincial or city scal or chief state
prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself,
le the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any other
assistant scal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another
preliminary investigation.cda

If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice reverses the

resolution of the provincial or city scal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct
the scal concerned to le the corresponding information without conducting
another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the
complaint or information.

In reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded

from considering errors, although unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether
there is probable cause for ling cases in court. He must make his own nding of probable
cause and is not con ned to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary
investigation. Moreover, his ndings are not subject to review unless shown to have been
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 made with grave abuse.
Opinion of the Secretary of Justice
Petitioners contend, however, that the determination of the question whether the
format or mechanics of a show is entitled to copyright protection is for the court, and not
the Secretary of Justice, to make. They assail the following portion of the resolution of the
respondent Secretary of Justice:
[T]he essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of
copyrightable materials as de ned and enumerated in Section 2 of P.D. No. 49.
Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a
dating game show is, in the opinion of this O ce, a non-copyrightable material .
Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall
within the class of works or materials susceptible of copyright registration as
provided in PD . No. 49. 3 (Emphasis added.)
It is indeed true that the question whether the format or mechanics of petitioners'
television show is entitled to copyright protection is a legal question for the court to make.
This does not, however, preclude respondent Secretary of Justice from making a
preliminary determination of this question in resolving whether there is probable cause for
filing the case in court. In doing so in this case, he did not commit any grave error.
Presentation of Master Tape
Petitioners claim that respondent Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion
in ruling that the master videotape should have been presented in order to determine
whether there was probable cause for copyright infringement. They contend that 20th
Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 4 on which respondent Secretary of
Justice relied in reversing the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, is inapplicable to
the case at bar because in the present case, the parties presented su cient evidence
which clearly establish "linkages between the copyrighted show 'Rhoda and Me' and the
infringing TV show 'It's a Date.'" 5
The case of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation involved raids conducted on various
videotape outlets allegedly selling or renting out "pirated" videotapes. The trial court found
that the a davits of NBI agents, given in support of the application for the search warrant,
were insu cient without the master tape. Accordingly, the trial court lifted the search
warrants it had previously issued against the defendants. On petition for review, this Court
sustained the action of the trial court and ruled: 6
The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted lms from which
the pirated lms were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search
warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated lms. 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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 lms 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.

This ruling was quali ed in the later case of Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
7 in which it was held:

In ne, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity

for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted lms 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. . . . 8

In the case at bar, during the preliminary investigation, petitioners and private
respondents presented written descriptions of the formats of their respective televisions
shows, on the basis of which the investigating prosecutor ruled:
As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the
television productions complainant's "RHODA AND ME" and Zosa's "IT'S A DATE"
is that two matches are made between a male and a female, both single, and the
two couples are treated to a night or two of dining and/or dancing at the expense
of the show. The major concepts of both shows is the same. Any difference
appear mere variations of the major concepts.
That there is an infringement on the copyright of the show "RHODA AND
ME" both in content and in the execution of the video presentation are established
because respondent's "IT'S A DATE" is practically an exact copy of complainant's
"RHODA AND ME" because of substantial similarities as follows, to wit:

"RHODA AND ME" "IT'S A DATE"

Set 1 Set 1

a. Unmarried participant a. same

of one gender (searcher)
appears on one side of a
divider, while three (3)
unmarried participants
of the other gender are
on the other side of the
divider. This arrangement
is done to ensure
that the searcher does
not see the searchees.
b. Searcher asks a question b. same
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to be answered by each of
the searchees. The purpose
is to determine who among
the searchees is the most
compatible with the searcher.
c. Searcher speculates on the c. same
match to the searchee.
d. Selection is made by the d. Selection is
use of compute (sic) methods, based on
the
or by the way questions are answer of
the
answered, or similar methods. Searchees.

Set 2 Set 2

Same as above with the genders same

of the searcher and searchees
interchanged. 9

Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and
skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. It is their position that the presentation of
a point-by-point comparison of the formats of the two shows clearly demonstrates the
nexus between the shows and hence establishes the existence of probable cause for
copyright infringement. Such being the case, they did not have to produce the master tape.
To begin with, the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, 1 0
otherwise known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes
of work entitled to copyright protection, to wit: LLphil

Section 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of
creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works:
(A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts,
directories, and gazetteers;
(B) Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers;
(C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral
delivery;
(D) Letters;
(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works
and entertainments in dumb shows, the acting form of which is xed in writing or
otherwise;
(F) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving,
lithography, and other works of art; models or designs for works of art;
(H) Reproductions of a work of art;
(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture,
whether or not patentable, and other works of applied art;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts;
(K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
(L) Photographic works and works produced by a process analogous
to photography; lantern slides;
(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;
(N) Computer programs;
(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels, tags, and
box wraps;
(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements,
arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or artistic works or of
works of the Philippine government as herein de ned, which shall be protected as
provided in Section 8 of this Decree.
(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of works
referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason of the selection and
arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations, the same to be
protected as such in accordance with Section 8 of this Decree.
(R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

This provision is substantially the same as §172 of the INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). 1 1 The format or mechanics of
a television show is not included in the list of protected works in §2 of P.D. 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 or 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 persons, and on terms and conditions speci ed in the statute.
12

Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a statutory creation, a

copyright may be obtained only for a work falling within the statutory
enumeration or description. 1 3
Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled in the
United States that there is no copyright except that which is both created and
secured by act of Congress . . . 1 4

P.D. No. 49, §2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to nished
works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. 1 5 Thus, the new
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES provides:
SEC. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. — Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under this law, to
any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or
mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied
in a work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 mere items of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative
or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.

What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This Court is of the opinion
that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda
and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in P.D. 49, §2(M), to wit:
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;

The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game
show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright, the
investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the videotapes of the
two shows.
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is
insu cient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the
determination of the existence of probable cause. As aptly observed by respondent
Secretary of Justice:
A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it
involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no
similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general
copyright/format of both dating game shows. 1 6

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
Puno, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., took no part. Related to one of parties.

Footnotes
1. Petition, Annex A, p. 4; Rollo, p. 27.
2. Sangguniang Bayan of Batac, Ilocos Norte v. Albano, 260 SCRA 561 (1996).
3. Petition, Annex B, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 28-29.
4. 164 SCRA 655 (1988).
5. Petition, p. 17; Rollo, p. 18.
6. Id., at 663-664.
7. 261 SCRA 144 (1996).

8. Id., 173.
9. Petition Annex "G"; Rollo, pp. 44-45.
10. Promulgated on November 14, 1972.
11. Effective on January 1, 1998.
SEC. 172. Literary and Artistic Works. — 172.1. Literary and artistic works,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual creations in the literary and
artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in
particular:
(a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;
(b) Periodicals and newspapers;

(c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery

whether or not reduced in writing or other material form;

(d) Letters;
(e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or
entertainment in dumb shows;
(f) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving,
lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;
(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture,
whether or not registrable as an industrial design and other works of applied art;
(i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works
relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;
(j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
(k) Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous
to photography; lantern slides;

(l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a

process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual
recordings;
(m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;

(n) Computer programs; and

(o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

12. 18 C.J.S. 161.

13. Id., at 165.

14. HORACE G. BALL, LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND LITERARY PROPERTY 45 (1944).

15. NEIL BOORSTYN, COPYRIGHT LAW 25 (1981).

16. Comment of Public Respondent, p. 9; Rollo, p. 152.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com