Case Summary (G.R. No. 123936)
Procedural History
- November 7, 1967: Petitioner filed a complaint in CFI Manila, Branch VII (Civil Case No. 71222) for copyright infringement, alleging unlicensed public performances of its compositions.
- Respondent answered, denying infringement and contending that mere performance in a restaurant did not violate Section 3 of Act 3134.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint without pronouncing costs.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 46373-R), which certified pure legal questions to the Supreme Court under Resolution dated February 16, 1973.
Undisputed Facts
- Petitioner holds valid registrations for the four musical compositions.
- Respondent’s restaurant employed a combo to play and sing these compositions without obtaining a license or permission.
- Respondent ignored repeated demands for licensing fees.
- The combo was paid as independent contractors; their fees were absorbed in the restaurant’s overhead, ultimately recovered through food and beverage sales.
- Trial testimony established that the music was provided to attract and entertain customers.
Legal Issues
- Does the playing and singing of copyrighted musical compositions in a profit-seeking restaurant constitute a “public performance for profit” under Section 3(c) of Act 3134?
- If so, can the restaurant operator be held liable for infringement?
- Alternatively, were the compositions in the public domain at the time of the performances, thereby precluding infringement?
Applicable Law
- Section 3(c), Act 3134: grants the proprietor exclusive right “to exhibit, perform, represent, produce, or reproduce the copyrighted work … for profit or otherwise.”
- Patent Office Administrative Order No. 3, ¶ 33 (as amended): requires copyright registration within 30 days after publication in Manila (60 days if elsewhere), or the work falls into the public domain.
- U.S. precedents (Buck v. Duncan; Buck v. Russon; Herbert v. Shanley Co.; John Church Co. v. Hillard Hotel Co.) interpret “performance for profit” broadly to include music provided in dine-and-dance establishments.
Appellant’s Arguments
I. The compositions remained private property despite registration.
II. Performances by independent contractors upon customer request are not public performances.
III. The playing and singing in a restaurant do not amount to “public performances for profit.”
IV. Respondent is liable for four separate infringements.
Analysis – Public Performance for Profit
- The live performance of copyrighted music in a commercial restaurant is a public performance for profit, even if patrons pay only for food and drink (not a cover charge).
- Following established U.S. and local interpretations, the music’s purpose was to induce patronage and is an integral, profit-producing component of the restaurant’s service.
- The absence of a direct fee for listening does not diminish the performance’s commercial character.
Analysis – Public Domain Consideration
- Under Patent Office rules, failure to register a composition within the prescribed period after publication causes it to become public p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 123936)
Facts
- Plaintiff-Appellant is a non-profit association of authors, composers, and publishers, duly organized under Philippine corporation law and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
- Appellant owns the copyrights to several musical compositions, including “Dahil Sa Iyo,” “Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin,” “Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang,” and “The Nearness Of You.”
- Defendant-Appellee operates “Alex Soda Fountain and Restaurant,” where a live combo of professional singers and musicians performed the appellant’s compositions without license or permission.
- Appellant demanded payment of the requisite license fees; appellee ignored the demand.
- On November 7, 1967, appellant filed an infringement complaint in CFI Manila, Branch VII (Civil Case No. 71222), alleging unauthorized public performance of its copyrighted works.
- Appellee admitted the performances but argued that mere playing and singing of copyrighted songs in a restaurant do not constitute infringement under Section 3 of the Copyright Law (Act 3134).
Procedural History
- The CFI dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied costs.
- Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR No. 46373-R).
- The Court of Appeals, deeming the case to involve pure questions of law, certified the record to the Supreme Court for final determination.
- Both lower courts issued resolutions and reports, incorporated in the Supreme Court rollo.
Issues
- Whether the playing and singing of copyrighted musical compositions in a restaurant constitute a “public performance for profit” under Section 3(c) of the Copyright Law (Act 3134).
- If so, whether the restaurant operator may be held liable