Case Summary (G.R. No. 222537)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The RTC of Quezon City found COSAC liable for infringement under the IPC, awarding unpaid license fees, monitoring expenses, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. The CA affirmed the ruling but deleted monitoring expenses. COSAC’s motion for reconsideration was denied. COSAC then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether COSAC infringed FILSCAP’s public performance rights under Section 177 of the IPC.
- Whether FILSCAP’s deeds of assignment and reciprocal agreements required publication in the IPO Gazette under Section 182 of the IPC.
- Proper measure of damages in lieu of provable actual losses.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FRAMEWORK
Under Section 177 of the IPC, authors possess exclusive economic rights including (a) public performance of their works and (b) other communication to the public. Performance rights vest upon creation without formalities. Assignments to CMOs are authorized by Section 183. Limitations (Section 184) and fair use (Section 185) carve out narrow exemptions.
ASSIGNMENT TO FILSCAP
FILSCAP holds deeds of assignment from local authors and reciprocal representation agreements with foreign societies, duly deposited and authenticated. These instruments empower FILSCAP to license public performance, collect royalties, and enforce authors’ rights in the Philippines.
INFRINGING ACTS
COSAC allowed live bands to perform copyrighted compositions and played recorded music via speakers and monitors in its restaurant, without securing FILSCAP licenses or paying the required fees.
LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT
Elements established: (1) FILSCAP’s valid title as assignee of copyright owners’ public performance rights; (2) COSAC’s unauthorized public performance and communication to the public of musical works under Section 177. COSAC did not qualify for any exemption under Sections 184 (private performance, charitable use, non-profit clubs) or fair use under Section 185.
FILING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Section 182 makes registration of assignments or exclusive licenses with the National Library optional and does not render unfiled instruments void. Publication in the IPO Gazette is discretionary and not a condition precedent to enforceability against infringers.
DAMAGES AND INTEREST
FILSCAP co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 222537)
Facts
- FILSCAP is a non-stock, non-profit corporation of Filipino and affiliate foreign composers, authors and publishers, authorized under its deeds of assignment and reciprocal representation agreements to license and collect fees for the public performance and communication to the public of musical works in its repertoire.
- On February 3, 2005 and January 13, 2006, FILSCAP monitoring agents discovered at COSAC’s Off the Grill Bar and Restaurant in Quezon City live-band performances and background broadcasts of copyrighted songs without license or payment.
- FILSCAP sent letters dated September 20, 2004, October 14, 2004 and a final demand on November 10, 2005, all ignored by COSAC, prompting FILSCAP to file a Complaint on February 13, 2006 for infringement, payment of royalties and fees, plus damages and attorneys’ fees.
Procedural History
- RTC Quezon City Branch 90, October 24, 2012: found infringement; ruled FILSCAP had standing; held assignments valid despite non-publication in IPO Gazette; ordered COSAC to pay unpaid license fees/royalties (₱317,050), monitoring expenses (₱5,778.17), attorney’s fees and costs (₱52,003.47).
- RTC Order July 22, 2013: denied COSAC’s motion for reconsideration.
- CA, May 28, 2015 Decision: affirmed RTC but deleted award for monitoring expenses; denied COSAC’s counterclaim; January 14, 2016 Resolution denied COSAC’s motion for reconsideration.
- SC, G.R. No. 222537, February 28, 2023: denied petition, affirmed CA with modification of damages.
Issues
- Whether assignments and reciprocal agreements must be published in the IPO Gazette under Section 182, IP Code, to be enforceable.
- Whether COSAC committed copyright infringement by live-band performances and mechanical playback without license.
- Whether awarded license fees/royalties, monitoring expenses, attorney’s fees were proper.
- Whether COSAC’s counterclaims for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses should succeed.
COSAC’s Arguments
- Section 182 requires mandatory publication in IPO Gazette to inform the public of FILSCAP’s authority; assignments not published are void as against third parties.
- FILSCAP lacked standing: did not prove copyright owners assigned rights to it.
- COSAC had no control or knowledge of bands’ song selections; songs once broadcast become public property.
- Awards for unpaid royalties, monitoring expenses and attorney’s fees are excessive; COSAC enti