Title
M.Y. Intercontinental Trading Corporation, Tedwin T. Uy, and Allianz Marketing and Publishing Corporation vs. St. Mary's Publishing Corporation and Jerry Vicente S. Catabijan
Case
G.R. No. 249715
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2023
St. Mary’s Publishing sued M.Y. Intercontinental for copyright infringement after a forged Deed of Assignment led to unauthorized book sales. Courts upheld forgery claims, affirmed infringement, awarded damages, and remanded counterclaims for unpaid obligations.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 249715)

Petitioner and Respondent Roles

St. Mary’s Publishing owned the copyrights to the subject textbooks. Petitioners provided financing and printing services, and allegedly obtained a Deed of Assignment transferring copyright to M.Y. Intercontinental; Allianz later imported, marketed, and sold the printed books in the Philippines.

Key Dates and Transaction Milestones

Notable transactional dates and events include: the business venture beginning in 2005; the principal financing contract (Ref. SMPCMY 76M 009) covering printing costs (principal Php76,748,494.68) executed in late 2008 with repayment schedule to June 2010; the December 7, 2009 purchase order for the textbooks (Php11,347,781.08); a series of default-related instruments and a Memorandum of Agreement dated March 12, 2010; a Deed of Assignment allegedly notarized March 29, 2010 and purportedly delivered in April 2010; filing of a declaratory relief petition on October 22, 2010; copyright registrations issued to M.Y. Intercontinental on January 18, 2012; filing of the copyright infringement complaint on March 13, 2013; trial court judgment December 8, 2017; Court of Appeals decision April 11, 2019; and further proceedings culminating in the Supreme Court disposition.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable substantive law: the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293, as amended), Civil Code provisions on contracts and obligations (Arts. 1318, 1409, 1467, 1713, 1731), and relevant procedural rules (Rules of Court, Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases). Per instruction based on the decision date, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the governing constitutional framework.

Factual Background — Financing, Printing and Defaults

Petitioners agreed to finance and facilitate printing of St. Mary’s Publishing’s textbooks in Fujian, China. The financing contract set out a principal loan amount, interest rate (2% monthly), repayment schedule, and penalties for late payment. St. Mary’s issued purchase orders as the contractual mechanism to avail printing financing. St. Mary’s repeatedly defaulted: checks bounced, deliveries were not accepted, and parties executed multiple accommodation instruments (pledges, promissory note, memorandum of agreement) to address arrears.

The Deed of Assignment and Copyright Registration

Petitioners assert that Catabijan executed a Deed of Assignment transferring copyrights in the subject textbooks to Uy/M.Y. Intercontinental as payment (dacion en pago) for obligations. M.Y. Intercontinental recorded and registered the Deed by obtaining copyright registration certificates (A2012-24 to A2012-35) from the National Library (and related registrations). Petitioners relied on those registrations to justify resale and importation of the printed books.

Declaratory Relief (Mandaluyong RTC) — Seller Status and First Sale Doctrine

In a separate declaratory relief action, the Mandaluyong RTC characterized M.Y. Intercontinental as an unpaid seller with a lien on printed copies, a right to resale, and a right to rescind the printing contract; it applied the first sale doctrine (Bobbs-Merrill) to conclude that the unpaid seller could import and resell lawfully made copies without constituting copyright infringement. That ruling was later reversed by the Court of Appeals on appeal in the declaratory relief case.

Copyright Infringement Complaint (Manila RTC Branch 24)

St. Mary’s sued petitioners, Fujian, and Allianz for copyright infringement, seeking injunctive relief and substantial damages (actual, moral, exemplary) plus attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioners counterclaimed for unpaid loan amounts and related relief but the trial court treated such counterclaims as permissive and required docket fee payment.

Trial Court Findings on Authenticity and Forgery

The trial court found the Deed of Assignment to be forged. Its findings were based on signature comparisons performed by the trial judge, documentary differences (improper notarial formalities: missing notarial seal/serial number and irregular acknowledgement), and forensic reports from the Quezon City PNP Crime Laboratory and the National Bureau of Investigation, both indicating the signatures on the Deed were not executed by Catabijan. Uy’s lone testimony was discredited for inconsistencies and delay in registration. Consequently, the trial court declared the deed void and the corresponding M.Y. Intercontinental copyright registrations invalid.

Trial Court Holdings on Infringement and Liability

Because the Deed of Assignment was void ab initio, the court held St. Mary’s retained copyright ownership and petitioners lacked consent to reproduce, import, market, and sell the books. The court found Fujian and Allianz liable for facilitating and committing infringing acts and ordered defendants to desist from those activities, to pay actual damages (fixed at 20% of gross sales derived from a presumptive computation), moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Court of Appeals Adjudication

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto, sustaining the findings of forgery and the resulting invalidation of M.Y. Intercontinental’s copyright certificates. The CA found no reversible error of fact or law and applied the presumption of regularity to the official forensic findings in the absence of contrary evidence from petitioners.

Supreme Court Issues Framed on Review

The Supreme Court distilled the contested issues into (1) the genuineness and validity of the Deed of Assignment; (2) the binding effect, if any, of the declaratory relief ruling; (3) the correctness of the trial court’s damages awards; and (4) whether petitioners’ compulsory counterclaims should have been resolved in the infringement case.

Legal Principles — Assignment, Copyright Registration, and Proof

The Court reiterated that copyrights may be assigned in whole or in part only by a written declaration indicating an intention to assign. Copyright registration is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein but does not confer ownership nor is it conclusive; registration merely shifts the burden of proof and can be rebutted by contrary evidence. The 2020 Revised Rules for IP Cases further clarify that National Library or IPO registrations do not create a presumption of ownership.

Court’s Assessment of the Deed of Assignment (Forgery and Consent)

Applying Rule 132 comparison and weighing forensic reports and the trial judge’s personal comparison, the Court found substantial evidence of forgery. Because consent is an essential element of contract formation, a contract executed by a forged signature is fictitious and void ab initio; thus the assignment never perfected and did not transfer copyright from St. Mary’s to petitioners. Consequently, the subsequent copyright registrations issued to M.Y. Intercontinental, based on the forged deed, were void and subject to cancellation.

Effect of Invalid Assignment on Copyright Ownership and Registration

The Court affirmed that the Deed’s invalidity destroyed the prima facie force of the copyright certificates relied upon by petitioners. The Supreme Court directed the Intellectual Property Office to cancel Copyright Registration Nos. A2012-24 to A2012-35 issued in favor of M.Y. Intercontinental because these registrations derived from the forged Deed.

Infringement Determination — Unauthorized Acts and Modes of Liability

With St. Mary’s established as the copyright owner, the Court found petitioners liable for infringement for reproducing, importing, marketing, and selling the books without consent. The Court applied statutory modes of liability under Section 216 (direct infringement, contributory liability via benefit and control, and inducement/material contribution) and observed that lack of intent is not a defense; strict civil liability applies.

Damages — Methodology and Awards Affirmed

The trial court awarded damages equivalent to 20% of the gross selling price of books under the December 7, 2009 purchase order as a reasonable approximation of actual damages in lieu of exact proof of profits and costs. The Supreme Court found this methodology permissible where petitioners f

...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.