Case Digest (G.R. No. 188933)
Facts:
Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Inc., G.R. No. 188933, February 21, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court.Petitioner Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. (Home Cable) is a cable television system operator that entered into channel-distribution and affiliation agreements to carry channels (including premium channels) to its paying subscribers and, separately, executed Memoranda of Agreement with Precision Audio Video Service, Inc. (Precision Audio) to supply videoke laser discs for dedicated channels (Channels 22, 32, 38, 52), which Home Cable operated and controlled. Respondent Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Inc. (Filscap) is an accredited collective management organization (CMO) representing Filipino composers, authors, and publishers and certain foreign reciprocal societies; Filscap monitored Home Cable in 1997–1998, found unlicensed use of its repertoire on Channels 22 and 32, and demanded licensing fees which Home Cable ignored.
Filscap filed a Complaint for injunction and damages on February 16, 1998 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 90, alleging unauthorized “playing, performing or communicating to the public” the musical compositions in Filscap’s repertoire; the RTC, after trial, rendered judgment on October 20, 2003 finding Home Cable liable and awarding monetary and injunctive relief. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G.R. CV No. 81083, issued a Decision on February 27, 2009 affirming liability but reducing damages (deleting the P1,000,000 actual damages and awarding P500,000 temperate damages, P500,000 exemplary damages and P100,000 attorney’s fees); its denial of Home Cable’s motion for reconsideration was resolved in a July 21, 2009 Resolution. Home Cable filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court (filed September 14, 2009), arguing (inter alia) that the Court’s later ABS‑CBN v. Phil. Multi‑Media System, Inc. decision should apply, that its ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Filscap the proper party (assignee/CMO) to sue for the alleged infringement of the authors’ economic rights?
- Were Precision Audio, Star TV, and Cable Box indispensable parties whose absence barred adjudication?
- Did Home Cable’s cablecasting of videoke channels constitute copyright infringement—specifically, did it violate the “communication to the public” right (as distinct from “public performance”)?
- Was the Court’s later decision in ABS‑CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Philippine Multi‑Media System, Inc. controlling to absolve Home Cable?
- Were the damages, exemplary damages, attorne...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)