Title
Microsoft Corp. vs. Masala
Case
G.R. No. 166391
Decision Date
Oct 21, 2015
Microsoft sued Rolando Manansala for selling pirated software. Courts initially dismissed the case, but the Supreme Court ruled that unauthorized sale alone constitutes copyright infringement, reversing prior decisions.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 166391)

Facts:

Microsoft Corporation v. Rolando D. Manansala and/or Mel Manansala, G.R. No. 166391, October 21, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.

Microsoft Corporation (petitioner), the owner of copyrights and trademarks for various Microsoft computer programs, accused Rolando D. Manansala (and/or Mel Manansala) (respondent), doing business as Dataman Trading Company and/or Comic Alley, of selling unauthorized copies of Microsoft software. On November 3, 1997 a private investigator, assisted by an NBI agent, conducted a test purchase of six (6) CD‑ROMs from the respondent’s store. An NBI agent secured a search warrant issued November 17, 1997; the November 19, 1997 search yielded several alleged illegal copies of Microsoft programs.

Petitioner filed an affidavit‑complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ). On March 20, 2000, a State Prosecutor dismissed the charge for violation of Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 49 (the Decree on Intellectual Property), recommending instead that the respondent be charged under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, reasoning that there was no proof the respondent actually printed or copied the products. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration; the DOJ denied it on May 15, 2001, and subsequently denied petitioner’s petition for review (resolution dated January 27, 2003).

Petitioner sought judicial relief by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ. On February 27, 2004, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the DOJ’s dismissal, reasoning that the conjunctive "and" in Section 5(a) of P.D. No. 49 required proof of all e...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was the DOJ’s finding of lack of probable cause to charge the respondent tainted by grave abuse of discretion?
  • Does the mere sale of pirated computer software, without proof of who copied the works, constitute copyright infringement under Section 5 (and Section 29) of Preside...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.