ABS-CBN vs.

PHIL MULTI-MEDIA, INC

Principle/Syllabus (escra)
• Copyrights; Broadcasting; Rebroadcasting is “the simultaneous broadcasting by one
broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.”
o Under the Rome Convention, rebroadcasting is “the simultaneous
broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another
broadcasting organization.” The Working Paper prepared by the Secretariat
of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights defines
broadcasting organizations as “entities that take the financial and editorial
responsibility for the selection and arrangement of, and investment in, the
transmitted content.” Evidently, PMSI would not qualify as a broadcasting
organization because it does not have the aforementioned responsibilities
imposed upon broadcasting organizations, such as ABS-CBN. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation vs. Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc., 576 SCRA
262, G.R. Nos. 175769-70 January 19, 2009

Parties:
Petitioner
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is licensed under the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines to engage in television and radio broadcasting.
• It broadcasts television programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby
provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through Channel 2 on Very High
Frequency (VHF) and Channel 23 on Ultra High Frequency (UHF).

• The programs aired over Channels 2 and 23 are either produced by ABS-CBN or
purchased from or licensed by other producers.

• ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern their programming in
accordance with perceived demands of the region. Thus, television programs shown in
Metro Manila and nearby provinces are not necessarily shown in other provinces

Respondent
Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) is the operator of Dream Broadcasting System. It delivers
digital direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to its subscribers all over the Philippines.

Subject Matter:
ABS-CBN demanded for PMSI to cease and desist from rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23. On April
27, 2001,7 PMSI replied that the rebroadcasting was in accordance with the authority granted it by
NTC and its obligation under NTC Memorandum Circular No. 4-08-88,8 Section 6.2 of which requires
all cable television system operators operating in a community within Grade “A” or “B” contours to
carry the television signals of the authorized television broadcast stations

Cause of Action:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the July 12, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the Decision of the Director-General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Also assailed is
the December 11, 2006 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
 Facts:
ABS-CBN demanded for PMSI to cease and desist from rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
On April 27, 2001,PMSI replied that the rebroadcasting was in accordance with the authority granted
it by NTC and its obligation under NTC Memorandum Circular No. 4-08-88,8 Section 6.2 of which
requires all cable television system operators operating in a community within Grade “A” or “B”
contours to carry the television signals of the authorized television broadcast stations.

Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties in an effort to reach a settlement; however, the
negotiations were terminated on April 4, 2002 by ABS-CBN allegedly due to PMSI’s inability to
ensure the prevention of illegal retransmission and further rebroadcast of its signals, as well as the
adverse effect of the rebroadcasts on the business operations of its regional television stations.

On May 13, 2002, ABS-CBN filed with the IPO a complaint for “Violation of Laws Involving Property
Rights, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction,” which was docketed as IPV No. 10-2002-0004. It alleged that PMSI’s unauthorized
rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright.

On July 2, 2002, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO granted ABS-CBN’s application for a
temporary restraining order. On July 12, 2002, PMSI suspended its retransmission of Channels 2 and
23 and likewise filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The BLA rendered a decision14 finding that PMSI infringed the broadcasting rights and copyright of
ABS-CBN and ordering it to permanently cease and desist from rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.

PMSI filed an appeal with the Office of the Director-General of the IPO. IPO rendered a decision in
favor of PMSI, the dispositive portion.
Thus, ABS-CBN filed a petition for review with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
and writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals,
The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of the Director-General of the IPO and dismissed both
petitions filed by ABS-CBN.

ABS-CBN’s motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition.

ABS-CBN contends that PMSI’s unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is an infringement

SC, affirmed the findings of the Director-General of the IPO and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PMSI is engaged in rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23that infringes the ABS-CBN’s
broadcasting rights and copyright under the Intellectual Property Code.

RULING:

No. Neither is PMSI guilty of infringement of ABS-CBN’s copyright under Section 177 of the IP Code
which states that copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out,
authorize or prevent the public performance of the work (Section 177.6), and other communication to
the public of the work (Section 177.7).

Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as “the transmission by wireless means for the
public reception of sounds or of images or of representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is
also ‘broadcasting’ where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting
organization or with its consent.”
On the other hand, rebroadcasting as defined in Article 3(g) of the International Convention for the
Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, otherwise
known as the 1961 Rome Convention, of which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory, is “the
simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another
broadcasting organization.”

The Director-General of the IPO correctly found that PMSI is not engaged in rebroadcasting and thus
cannot be considered to have infringed ABS-CBN’s broadcasting rights and copyright,

In the case at hand, Appellant is not the origin nor does it claim to be the origin of the programs
broadcasted by the Appellee. Appellant did not make and transmit on its own but merely carried the
existing signals of the Appellee. When Appellant’s subscribers view Appellee’s programs in
Channels 2 and 23, they know that the origin thereof was the Appellee.

The nature of broadcasting is to scatter the signals in its widest area of coverage as possible. On this
score, it may be said that making public means that accessibility is undiscriminating as long as it [is]
within the range of the transmitter and equipment of the broadcaster. That the medium through
which the Appellant carries the Appellee’s signal, that is via satellite, does not diminish the fact that
it operates and functions as a cable television. It remains that the Appellant’s transmission of signals
via its DTH satellite television service cannot be considered within the purview of broadcasting.
ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own signals; PMSI merely carries such signals which the viewers
receive in its unaltered form. PMSI does not produce, select, or determine the programs to be shown
in Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does not pass itself off as the origin or author of such programs.
Insofar as Channels 2 and 23 are concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in accordance with
Memorandum Circular 04-08-88. With regard to its premium channels, it buys the channels from
content providers and transmits on an as-is basis to its viewers. Clearly, PMSI does not perform the
functions of a broadcasting organization; thus, it cannot be said that it is engaged in rebroadcasting
Channels 2 and 23.
The Director-General of the IPO and the Court of Appeals also correctly found that PMSI’s services
are similar to a cable television system because the services it renders fall under cable
“retransmission,”
The retransmission of ABS-CBN’s signals by PMSI – which functions essentially as a cable television
– does not therefore constitute rebroadcasting in violation of the former’s intellectual property rights
under the IP Code.

Indeed, intellectual property protection is merely a means towards the end of making society benefit from the
creation of its men and women of talent and genius. This is the essence of intellectual property laws, and it
explains why certain products of ingenuity that are concealed from the public are outside the pale of protection
afforded by the law. It also explains why the author or the creator enjoys no more rights than are consistent
with public welfare.