G.R. No. 108946 - Joaquin vs. Zosa

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108946)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Important dates include: BJPI’s original copyright certificate (Jan. 28, 1971) and addendum (June 28, 1973); Joaquin’s viewing of It’s a Date and subsequent letters to Zosa (July 14–25, 1991); IXL’s copyright registration for an episode of It’s a Date (certificate issued Aug. 14, 1991); filing of an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 in the Quezon City RTC (docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-92-27854); review before the Department of Justice and Secretary Drilon’s reversal of the assistant city prosecutor and directive to move for dismissal (Aug. 12, 1992) and denial of Joaquin’s motion for reconsideration (Dec. 3, 1992); petition for certiorari followed in the Supreme Court. Because the decision in this matter postdates 1990, the applicable constitutional framework is the 1987 Constitution.

Facts Relevant to the Dispute

BJPI asserted ownership of the audiovisual works comprising episodes of Rhoda and Me and claimed that It’s a Date reproduced the format and execution of Rhoda and Me. Joaquin sent demand letters to IXL after observing It’s a Date on television; Zosa apologized and requested settlement talks but IXL continued airing the show and later sought a copyright registration for an episode of It’s a Date. Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for infringement under P.D. No. 49 against Zosa and RPN officers; a preliminary investigation led to action by the assistant city prosecutor, but Zosa sought review before the Secretary of Justice, who reversed and directed dismissal for lack of probable cause, resulting in this certiorari petition.

Issues Raised by the Petitioners

Petitioners advanced two principal contentions: (1) the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion (amounting to lack of jurisdiction) by relying on the non-presentation of the copyrighted master videotape as fatal to a finding of probable cause, when that ground had not been raised by respondents during preliminary investigation; and (2) the Secretary usurped the judicial function by determining whether the format or mechanics of the television show were copyrightable—an issue petitioners contend is exclusively for the trial court to resolve in proper proceedings.

Relevant Statutory and Procedural Law

The matter implicates the statutory copyright framework under P.D. No. 49 (Decree on Intellectual Property) — specifically Section 2’s enumeration of protected classes of works (including cinematographic and audio-visual recordings under subsection (M)) — and later corroborated language in the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. No. 8293) that excludes ideas, concepts, formats, procedures, and methods from copyright protection (Sec. 175). Procedurally, the powers and duties of prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice’s review are governed by Rule 112, section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as cited: the investigating fiscal must certify probable cause and forward records, the city or provincial fiscal acts within prescribed periods, and the Secretary of Justice may reverse a fiscal’s resolution and direct dismissal or filing without necessarily requiring another preliminary investigation. The Secretary is permitted to consider errors not expressly assigned to him in resolving whether probable cause exists; his findings are reviewable only for grave abuse of discretion.

Secretary of Justice’s Findings and Rationale

The Secretary reversed the assistant city prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and directed dismissal on two pivotal grounds: (1) the abstract idea, concept, or format of a dating game show is not protected by copyright under P.D. No. 49; copyright protects the particular expression and fixed audiovisual works, not ideas or formats in the abstract; and (2) for comparison to establish infringement, presentation of the copyrighted master audiovisual tape is necessary because a television show comprises audio-visual elements and effects that cannot be fully captured by a verbal description. The Secretary relied on precedent recognizing the utility of comparing master tapes to establish the necessary linkage between an original and an alleged infringing copy and invoked the need for evidence establishing substantial similarity of expression rather than mere similarity of concept.

The Secretary’s Authority to Consider Unassigned Grounds

In response to petitioners’ contention that the master-tape requirement was not an issue raised during preliminary investigation and therefore could not be used by the Secretary to reverse, the Court explained that the Secretary of Justice is not strictly confined to the issues raised at the preliminary investigation stage. Under Rule 112, section 4, and established practice, the Secretary must independently determine whether probable cause exists and may consider unassigned errors for that purpose. The Secretary’s determination will be respected unless shown to constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Copyrightable Subject Matter: Formats versus Fixed Audiovisual Works

The Court carefully analyzed the statutory list of protected works under P.D. No. 49 (Section 2) and the analogous provisions in the Intellectual Property Code, emphasizing the long-standing principle that copyright protection extends to fixed expressions of ideas (e.g., audiovisual recordings, cinematographic works) but does not extend to ideas, concepts, formats, methods, or procedures in the abstract. Applying that legal principle, the Court concluded that BJPI’s copyright properly covered the audiovisual recordings of specific episodes of Rhoda and Me (Section 2(M): cinematographic and audio-visual works), but did not extend to the general format or concept of a dating game show. Consequently, an allegation of infringement required a comparison of the concrete audiovisual expressions — which, in this cas

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 108946)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 361 Phil. 900; 96 OG No. 16, 2324 (April 17, 2000). Second Division. G.R. No. 108946, January 28, 1999.
This is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr. and BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI).
Petitioners sought annulment of: (a) the Department of Justice (DOJ) resolution dated August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27854 (Gabriel Zosa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Francisco Joaquin, Jr.), and (b) the DOJ resolution dated December 3, 1992 denying petitioner Joaquin’s motion for reconsideration.
The petition challenges the Secretary of Justice’s reversal of an investigating assistant city prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and the Secretary’s directive to move for dismissal of the case against private respondents.

Relevant Parties and Intellectual Property at Issue

Petitioners: Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr. (president of BJPI) and BJ Productions, Inc. (holder/grantee of copyright).
Private respondents: Gabriel M. Zosa (president and general manager of IXL Productions, Inc.), and officers of RPN Channel 9 — William Esposo, Felipe Medina, Jr., and Casey Francisco.
Public respondent: Franklin M. Drilon, Secretary of Justice.
Intellectual property: BJPI is holder of Certificate of Copyright No. M922 dated January 28, 1971, for the television dating game show "Rhoda and Me."
BJPI submitted an addendum to its certificate on June 28, 1973 specifying the show’s format and style of presentation.
IXL sought and obtained a National Library certificate of copyright for the first episode of "It’s a Date" on August 14, 1991.

Factual Background and Chronology

July 14, 1991: Petitioner Joaquin observed an episode of "It’s a Date" (produced by IXL) on RPN Channel 9.
July 18, 1991: Joaquin wrote to Gabriel Zosa informing him of BJPI’s copyright in "Rhoda and Me" and demanding discontinuance of "It’s a Date."
July 19, 1991: Zosa apologized and requested a meeting to discuss settlement; nonetheless, "It’s a Date" continued to air.
July 25, 1991: Joaquin reiterated his demand and warned of referral to counsel for legal action if IXL did not comply.
Following petitioners’ complaint, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was filed against Zosa and certain RPN officers; the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-27854 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104.
Private respondent Zosa sought review of the assistant city prosecutor’s finding; on August 12, 1992, Secretary of Justice Drilon reversed the assistant city prosecutor and directed dismissal (or to move for dismissal) of the case against private respondents.
Petitioner Joaquin’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Secretary on December 3, 1992, prompting this certiorari petition.

Issues Presented

Whether the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by reversing the investigating prosecutor’s finding of probable cause on the ground of non-presentation of the master videotape, when that ground was not raised as a controverted issue during preliminary investigation.
Whether the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion by arrogating unto himself the exclusive judicial determination of what is copyrightable, specifically whether a television show’s format or mechanics is entitled to copyright protection.
Whether petitioners established probable cause for copyright infringement without presenting the master videotape of "Rhoda and Me."

Petitioners’ Contentions

The Secretary gravely abused his discretion and lacked jurisdiction in relying on non-presentation of the master tape as fatal to probable cause when private respondents never raised that as an issue during preliminary investigation.
The Secretary gravely abused his discretion by making a determination on what is copyrightable (the show’s format), an issue that petitioners contend is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court to resolve in a proper proceeding.
Petitioners asserted that they presented sufficient evidence, including a point-by-point comparison of show formats, establishing linkages between "Rhoda and Me" and "It’s a Date" such that the master tape need not be produced to establish probable cause.

Respondents’ Contentions

Both public and private respondents maintained that petitioners failed to establish probable cause because they did not present the copyrighted master videotape of "Rhoda and Me."
Private respondents contended that BJPI’s copyright covered only a specific episode of "Rhoda and Me" and that formats or concepts of dating game shows are not protected under P.D. No. 49.

Preliminary Investigation Authority and Rule 112, Sec. 4

A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor, who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal actions, but who is subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice.
Rule 112, Sec. 4 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) was quoted to show the duties of the investigating fiscal: if cause is found, prepare resolution and information with a certification of personal examination and existence of reasonable ground; if not, recommend dismissal; forward records to higher prosecutors who shall take action within specified periods; no filing or dismissal without prior written authority of higher prosecutors; where a higher prosecutor reverses a