Columbia Pcitures vs. CA

4. Columbia Pcitures vs.
CA
August 28, 1996 | Regalado. J.
Copyright Infringement; Affidavit Evidence
Doctrine: A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not
know what works he was indirectly copying, or did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least
knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril. In determining the question of infringement, the
amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not
necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value
of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent
appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute a piracy.
Case Summary: A complaint was filed by petitioners and a search warrant was issued against Sunshine Home Video.
The respondent assailed that failure to present the master tapes at the time of application of search warrant negate the
existence of probable cause. SC held that the basis of the facts, as cited above, are the affidavits and depositions of
NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, Atty. Rico V. Domingo, and Rene C. Baltazar. Given these facts, a probable cause
exists.
Facts:
Complainants: Columbia Pictures, Inc., Orion Pictures Corporation, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Universal City Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney
Company, and Warner Brothers, Inc.
A formal complaint was filed in the NBI for violation of PD No. 49 and sought its assistance in their anti-film piracy drive.
Agents of the NBI and private researchers made discreet surveillance on various video establishments in Metro Manila
including Sunshine Home Video Inc. in Makati.
A search warrant was served and the NBI operatives seized various video tapes of duly copyrighted motion pictures/films
owned or exclusively distributed by private complainants, and machines, equipment, television sets, paraphernalia,
materials, accessories all of which were included in the receipt for properties accomplished by the raiding team. Copy of
the receipt was furnished and/or tendered to Mr. Danilo A. Pelindario, registered owner-proprietor of Sunshine Home
Video.
Facts established in this case as found by the trial court:

 copyrighted video tapes bearing titles enumerated in Search Warrant No. 87-053 were being sold, leased,
distributed or circulated, or offered for sale, lease, distribution, or transferred or caused to be transferred by
defendants at their video outlets, without the written consent of the private complainants or their assignee;
 recovered or confiscated from defendants’ possession were video tapes containing copyrighted motion picture
films without the authority of the complainant;
 the video tapes originated from spurious or unauthorized persons; and
 said video tapes were exact reproductions of the film listed in the search warrant whose copyrights or distribution
rights were owned by complainants.
Issues: Whether 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.
Ruling:
The basis of these facts, as cited above, are the affidavits and depositions of NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, Atty. Rico
V. Domingo, and Rene C. Baltazar. Given these facts, a probable cause exists.
Accordingly, to restrict the exercise of discretion by a judge by adding a particular requirement (the presentation of master
tapes, as intimated by 20th Century Fox) not provided nor implied in the law for a finding of probable cause is beyond the
realm of judicial competence or statesmanship. It serves no purpose but to stultify and constrict the judicious exercise of a
court’s prerogatives and to denigrate the judicial duty of determining the existence of probable cause to a mere ministerial
or mechanical function. There is, to repeat, no law or rule which requires that the existence of probable cause is or should
be determined solely by a specific kind of evidence.
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.
The fact that private respondents could not show proof of their authority or that there was consent from the copyright
owners for them to sell, lease, distribute or circulate petitioners’ copyrighted films immeasurably bolsters the lower court’s
initial finding of probable cause. That private respondents are licensed by the Videogram Regulatory Board does not
insulate them from criminal and civil liability for their unlawful business practices.
Even without prior registration and deposit of a work which may be entitled to protection under the Decree, the creator can
file action for infringement of its rights." He cannot demand, however, payment of damages arising from infringement. The
same opinion stressed that "the requirements of registration and deposit are thus retained under the Decree, not as
conditions for the acquisition of copyright and other rights, but as prerequisites to a suit for damages."
Procedural: The ground available for barring recourse to our courts by an unlicensed foreign corporation doing or
transacting business in the Philippines should properly be "lack of capacity to sue," not "lack of personality to sue."
Certainly, a corporation whose legal rights have been violated is undeniable such, if not the only, real party in interest to
bring suit thereon although, for failure to comply with the licensing requirement, it is not capacitated to maintain any suit
before our courts.
The doctrine of lack of capacity to sue based on failure to first acquired a local license is based on considerations of public
policy. It was never intended to favor nor insulate from suit unscrupulous establishments or nationals in case of breach of
valid obligations or violations of legal rights of unsuspecting foreign firms or entities simply because they are not licensed
to do business in the country.
Disposition: The assailed judgment and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, and necessarily inclusive of the order
of the lower court dated November 22, 1988, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
. Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 49 by Presidential Decree No. 1987 prohibits:
(1) directly or indirectly transferring or causing to be transferred any sound recording or motion picture or other
audio-visual works so recorded with intent to sell, lease, publicly exhibit or cause to be sold, leased or publicly
exhibited, or to use or cause to be used for profit such articles on which sounds, motion pictures, or other
audio-visual works are so transferred without the written consent of the owner or his assignee
(2) selling, leasing, distributing, circulating, publicly exhibiting, or offering for sale, lease, distribution, or
possessing for the purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public exhibition any of the
abovementioned articles, without the written consent of the owner or his assignee; and,
(3) directly or indirectly offering or making available for a fee, rental, or any other form of compensation any
equipment, machinery, paraphernalia or any material with the knowledge that such equipment, machinery,
paraphernalia or material will be used by another to reproduce, without the consent of the owner, any
phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on which sounds, motion pictures or other audio-
visual recordings may be transferred, and which provide distinct bases for criminal prosecution, being crimes
independently punishable under Presidential Decree No. 49, as amended, aside from the act of infringing or
aiding or abetting such infringement under Section 29.

Columbia Pcitures vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Columbia Pcitures vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Columbia Pcitures vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4. Columbia Pcitures vs.

Facts established in this case as found by the trial court:

. Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 49 by Presidential Decree No. 1987 prohibits:

You might also like