Title
ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon
Case
G.R. No. 195956
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2015
ABS-CBN challenged GMA-7's use of copyrighted news footage; Supreme Court ruled GMA-7's minimal use was fair use, lacked intent, and acted in good faith.
copyright infringement
broadcasting company
news footage

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252117)

Factual Background

The dispute arose from television coverage of the return of hostage Angelo dela Cruz on July 22, 2004. ABS-CBN Corporation conducted live audio-visual coverage at Ninoy Aquino International Airport and supplied its footage to Reuters Television Service under a special embargo agreement that restricted use by other Philippine subscribers. GMA-7 assigned personnel to cover the same event and, as a subscriber to Reuters and CNN, received live satellite feeds. GMA-7 carried a live newsfeed from Reuters and, according to ABS-CBN, aired footage that originated from ABS-CBN in contravention of the embargo. Respondents asserted they aired only a short excerpt and that they had no notice of ABS-CBN’s embargo or ownership.

Procedural History — Prosecutors and Department of Justice

ABS-CBN filed a Complaint for copyright infringement under Sections 177 and 211 on August 13, 2004. The City Prosecutor resolved on December 3, 2004 that probable cause existed as to respondents Grace Dela Pena-Reyes and John Oliver T. Manalastas, and an Information was filed on December 17, 2004. Respondents petitioned the Department of Justice for review. On August 1, 2005, Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez granted respondents’ petition and ordered withdrawal of the Information, reasoning that good faith exculpated respondents. On June 29, 2010, Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra reversed the Gonzalez Resolution, found probable cause to charge the named respondents including corporate officers, and ordered the filing of an Information for violations of Sections 177 and 211. Respondents sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and, on November 9, 2010, set aside the Agra Resolution and reinstated the Gonzalez Resolution dismissing the Information.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals concluded that the Agra Resolution was tainted by error of jurisdiction and that, on the record, respondents had aired only a five-second excerpt of the live feed. The appellate court accepted the proposition that news footage was copyrightable but held that the brief airing fell within statutory limitations and fair use, and that respondents acted in good faith in broadcasting the Reuters feed without notice of ABS-CBN’s embargo; it therefore reinstated the DOJ’s earlier dismissal.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the principal questions as: whether Secretary Agra acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; whether news footage is copyrightable; whether the disputed rebroadcast constituted fair use or otherwise fell within statutory limitations; whether lack of knowledge or good faith negates criminal liability under the Intellectual Property Code; whether corporate officers may be criminally liable absent proof of active participation; and whether probable cause existed to charge respondents.

Legal Standards on Arraignment, Review, and Probable Cause

The Court reviewed Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure governing suspension of arraignment when a petition for review is pending before the Department of Justice and reiterated that the suspension may not exceed sixty days. The Court emphasized the executive’s plenary discretion in determining probable cause and that judicial review of a Secretary of Justice resolution is permissible only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the definition and function of probable cause: it requires facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty, and it does not equate to guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Copyrightability of News Footage

The Court held that news events themselves are not copyrightable, but the audiovisual expression of those events may be. It construed the Intellectual Property Code provisions protecting works—including audiovisual and cinematographic works—and distinguished ideas from expression under the idea/expression dichotomy. The Court concluded that television news footage involves original selection, framing, audio, and visual choices that constitute an expression protected by copyright and that broadcasting organizations enjoy both copyright and neighboring rights under Sections 177 and 211 and relevant international conventions such as the Rome Convention.

Fair Use, Limitations and the Four-Factor Test

The Court explained that copyright protection is subject to statutory limitations, notably Sections 184 and 212, and that fair use is codified in Section 185. It stated the four factors to determine fair use: purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount and substantiality of the portion used, and effect upon the potential market. The Court observed that resolution of fair use is a matter of defense that requires full consideration of evidence at trial. Because the preliminary investigation stage requires only a probable cause determination, the Court declined to conclusively resolve fair use on the limited record and held that the rebroadcast without authority gives rise to probability of a crime under the Code.

Good Faith, Knowledge, and Mens Rea in Copyright Infringement

The Court analyzed whether good faith or lack of knowledge negates criminal liability under the Intellectual Property Code. It declared that the Code establishes an offense that is malum prohibitum and imposes strict liability for copyright infringement in criminal prosecutions. The Court rejected respondents’ contention that live rebroadcasts should attract a special mens rea inquiry and held that absence of knowledge or good faith does not negate probable cause for criminal infringement under the current statutory scheme. The Court surveyed comparative law showing other jurisdictions may require willfulness, but affirmed that Philippine law, as written, does not import a mens rea element into the offenses in question, except where the statute expressly conditions liability on knowledge as in aiding and abetting provisions.

Corporate Liability and Active Participation

The Court addressed the scope of liability of corporate officers and the propriety of piercing the corporate veil. It reiterated that a corporation and its officers are distinct, but that corporate agents who by act or omission cause the corporation to commit a crime may be held individually liable. The Court emphasized that individual criminal liability requires proof of active participation or overt acts contributing to the commission of the offense, not mere constructive or titular positions. Applying these principles, the Court found probable cause that Grace Dela Pena-Reyes and John Oliver T. Manalastas, by virtue of their responsibilities over the news control room, directly participated in airing the embargoed footage and thus could be held criminally liable. The Court found, however, that Secretary Agra gravely abused his discretion by ordering the filing of an Information against the corporate officers Felipe Gozon, Gilberto R. Duavit, Jr., Marissa L. Flores, and Jessica A. Soho without adequate proof of their active participation or overt acts constituting conspiracy.

Application to the Present Case and Reasoning on Disposition

The Court reviewed the record and foun

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms