Case Digest (G.R. No. 131522)
Facts:
Pacita I. Habana, Alicia L. Cinco and Jovita N. Fernando v. Felicidad C. Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc., G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999, the Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Pacita I. Habana, Alicia L. Cinco and Jovita N. Fernando are co‑authors and registered copyright owners of textbooks titled College English for Today (CET), Books 1 and 2, and Workbook for College Freshman English, Series 1. Respondents Felicidad C. Robles (author/publisher) and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. (publisher/distributor and co‑owner of copyrights in Developing English Proficiency (DEP), Books 1 and 2, 1985 ed.) published DEP, which petitioners alleged was substantially similar to and in part a literal reproduction of CET.
After discovering DEP in bookstores, petitioners compared the works and identified numerous passages, illustrative examples and presentation schemes they claimed were lifted from CET. Petitioners demanded that respondents cease distribution and recall DEP; respondents did not comply. On July 7, 1988 petitioners filed in the Regional Trial Court, Makati (Civil Case No. 88‑1317, Branch 36), a complaint for infringement and/or unfair competition with damages, seeking among other reliefs destruction of infringing copies, an accounting, and damages.
Respondent Goodwill filed an answer disclaiming liability and asserting an agreement with Robles that made the author solely responsible for any infringement; Robles denied copying, asserted independent research and reliance on common sources (including foreign works and the APCAS syllabus), and invoked the right of fair use. Robles also counterclaimed for damages alleging bad faith by petitioner Habana. The parties stipulated facts for trial and agreed the trial court should first resolve infringement.
On April 23, 1993, the trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioners to reimburse defendants for attorney’s fees (P20,000 to Robles; P5,000 to Goodwill). Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 44053). On June 27, 1997 the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but deleted the award of attorney’s fees; its opinion emphasized that similarity alone does not establish infringement when both works derive from common sources. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on November 25, 1997.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court First Division took the case; Justice Pardo p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondents commit copyright infringement by reproducing portions of petitioners’ CET in DEP despite asserted common sources and similarities of subject matter?
- Was there animus furandi (intent to appropriate) on respondents’ part shown by their conduct (e.g., refusal to withdraw copies) such that damages and other relief are warranted?
- Did respondent Robles abuse a writer’s right of fair use under Section 11 of P.D. N...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)