G.R. No. 170070 - Delos Reyes vs. Commission on Elections

FILSCAP filed an amended complaint for copyright infringement against Anrey before the Baguio City RTC in September 2009
RTC Branch 6 dismissed the complaint (April 15, 2015), invoking Section 184.1(i), IP Code (charitable/educational exemption)
Court of Appeals affirmed (April 19, 2017) and denied reconsideration (August 3, 2017)
FILSCAP elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition

1987 Constitution: recognizes property’s social function (Art. XII § 6) and protects intellectual property (Art. XIV § 13)
IP Code, § 2: balances creators’ exclusive rights with diffusion of knowledge and the common good
§ 177 enumerates economic rights: reproduction, adaptation, distribution, rental, public display, public performance, and other communication to the public

Does playing unlicensed radio broadcasts of copyrighted music as background in restaurants constitute infringement of FILSCAP’s rights under § 177?

Public performance (§ 177.6): non-broadcast performances (e.g., live or mechanical) perceived without recourse to § 171.3 communications
Communication to the public (§ 177.7): making works available by wire or wireless means (defined in § 171.3) such as broadcasting and rebroadcasting

Playing radio via loudspeakers is transmission by wireless means—fits § 171.3 definition, not § 171.6 public performance
International guidance (WIPO, Berne Convention Art. 11 bis) treats broadcast communications separately from non-broadcast performances
Reception for restaurant patrons constitutes communication to a “new public,” requiring a separate license from FILSCAP

§ 185 four-factor test disqualifies commercial restaurant use:
1. Purpose/Character – commercial, non-transformative (background ambiance)
2. Nature – highly creative musical works
3. Amount – full, unabridged sound recordings played in entirety
4. Market Effect – undermines license revenues for restaurants and similar establishments
§ 184 exemptions (e.g., private, charitable or educational institution) inapplicable to for-profit restaurants

Berne Convention and TRIPS require separate authorization for broadcasts and retransmissions to new publics
U.S. “business exemption” found inconsistent with TRIPS underscores that commercial users must secure individual licenses

Under § 216.1, IP Code, infringer liable for actual damages or just damages in lieu—plus legal costs and attorney’s fees
Supreme Court awards:
• P6,300 per restaurant (total P12,600) for unlicensed 2009 public communications
• P50,000 for attorney’s fees
• Interest: 12 % p.a. (Sept 8, 2009–June 30, 2013), 6 % p.a. thereafter unti

FILSCAP is a non-stock, non-profit society accredited by the IPO to license and enforce public performance rights for local composers, authors, publishers and affiliated foreign societies.
Anrey operates three “Sizzling Plate” restaurants in Baguio City.
Between July and September 2008, FILSCAP monitored these restaurants and found twelve Filipino and foreign copyrighted musical works playing as background music.
FILSCAP sent demand letters to Anrey’s restaurants insisting they secure licenses and pay annual fees; demands went unheeded.
FILSCAP filed an amended Complaint for Copyright Infringement before Branch 6, RTC, Baguio City, seeking compensatory, nominal and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.

RTC (Apr. 15, 2015) dismissed FILSCAP’s complaint and Anrey’s counterclaims, citing Section 184(i) exemption for non-profit, no-admission-fee performances.
RTC denied FILSCAP’s motions for reconsideration (June 30, 2015).
CA (Apr. 19, 2017) affirmed the RTC, invoking U.S. “homestyle/business” exemptions; denied FILSCAP’s motion for reconsideration (Aug. 3, 2017).
FILSCAP filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 233918).

Whether the unlicensed playing of radio broadcasts as background music in dining areas of a restaurant constitutes copyright infringement under Republic Act No. 8293.

Petition GRANTED.
CA and RTC decisions REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Anrey ordered to pay FILSCAP:
• ₱10,000 temperate damages for unlicensed public performance.
• ₱50,000 attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Interest: 12% p.a. from Sept. 8, 2009 to June 30, 2013; 6% p.a. thereafter until finality; thereafter 6% p.a. until full satisfaction.
Costs against Anrey.

Under Section 177, copyright owners hold exclusive economic rights including: reproduction, adaptation, distribution, rental, public display, public performance (Sec. 177.6) and other communication to the public (Sec. 177.7).
To prove infringement, plaintiff must show:
• Ownership of a valid copyright or assignment.
• Unauthorized violation of at least one economic right.
• That the act does not fall under statutory e