Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Habana V Robles
Habana V Robles
131522 July 19, 1999 came upon the book of respondent Robles and upon perusal of
said book they were surprised to see that the book was strikingly
PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and
FERNANDO, petitioners, illustrative examples in their own book, CET.
vs.
FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books
INC., respondents. (CET and DEP), petitioners found that several pages of the
respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of
petitioners' book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright
infringement.
PARDO, J.:
Petitioners then made demands for damages against
1
The case before us is a petition for review on certiorari to set respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist from
aside the (a) decision or the Court of Appeals 2, and (b) the further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed
resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, 3 in copies of respondent Robles' works.
which the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the
complaint for infringement and/or unfair competition and damages However, respondents ignored the demands, hence, on July 7,
but deleted the award for attorney's fees.1âwphi1.nêt 1988; petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a
complaint for "Infringement and/or unfair competition with
The facts are as follows: damages" 4 against private respondents.5
Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued In the complaint, petitioners alleged that in 1985, respondent
certificates of copyright registration covering their published Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the contents
works, produced through their combined resources and efforts, of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted,
entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity), copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their
Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN book CET. The textual contents and illustrations of CET were
ENGLISH, Series 1. literally reproduced in the book DEP. The plagiarism,
incorporation and reproduction of particular portions of the book
CET in the book DEP, without the authority or consent of
Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are
petitioners, and the misrepresentations of respondent Robles that
the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published
the same was her original work and concept adversely affected
work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for
and substantially diminished the sale of the petitioners' book and
brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book was covered by
caused them actual damages by way of unrealized income.
copyrights issued to them.
Despite the demands of the petitioners for respondents to desist
In the course of revising their published works, petitioners
from committing further acts of infringement and for respondent to
scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on other
recall DEP from the market, respondents refused. Petitioners
textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance they
asked the court to order the submission of all copies of the book experiences, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted
DEP, together with the molds, plates and films and other book; (2) DEP followed the scope and sequence or syllabus
materials used in its printing destroyed, and for respondents to which are common to all English grammar writers as
render an accounting of the proceeds of all sales and profits since recommended by the Association of Philippine Colleges of Arts
the time of its publication and sale. and Sciences (APCAS), so any similarity between the
respondents book and that of the petitioners was due to the
Respondent Robles was impleaded in the suit because she orientation of the authors to both works and standards and
authored and directly committed the acts of infringement syllabus; and (3) the similarities may be due to the authors'
complained of, while respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. was exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrigthed materials, as
impleaded as the publisher and joint co-owner of the copyright guides."
certificates of registration covering the two books authored and
caused to be published by respondent Robles with obvious Respondent interposed a counterclaim for damages on the
connivance with one another. ground that bad faith and malice attended the filing of the
complaint, because petitioner Habana was professionally jealous
On July 27, 1988, respondent Robles filed a motion for a bill of and the book DEP replaced CET as the official textbook of the
particulars6 which the trial court approved on August 17, 1988. graduate studies department of the Far Eastern University.9
Petitioners complied with the desired particularization, and
furnished respondent Robles the specific portions, inclusive of During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation
pages and lines, of the published and copyrighted books of the of
petitioners which were transposed, lifted, copied and plagiarized facts 10 and for the trial court to first resolve the issue of
and/or otherwise found their way into respondent's book. infringement before disposing of the claim for damages.
On August 1, 1988, respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. filed its After the trial on the merits, on April 23, 1993, the trial court
answer to the complaint7 and alleged that petitioners had no rendered its judgment finding thus:
cause of action against Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. since it was not
privy to the misrepresentation, plagiarism, incorporation and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court
reproduction of the portions of the book of petitioners; that there hereby orders that the complaint filed against
was an agreement between Goodwill and the respondent Robles defendants Felicidad Robles and Goodwill
that Robles guaranteed Goodwill that the materials utilized in the Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED; that said
manuscript were her own or that she had secured the necessary plaintiffs solidarily reimburse defendant Robles for
permission from contributors and sources; that the author P20,000.00 attorney's fees and defendant
assumed sole responsibility and held the publisher without any Goodwill for P5,000.00 attorney's fees. Plaintiffs
liability. are liable for cost of suit.
The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that 177.6 Public performance of the work; and
Presidential Decree No. 49 was in force. At present, all laws
dealing with the protection of intellectual property rights have 177.7 Other communication to the public of the
been consolidated and as the law now stands, the protection of work 19
copyrights is governed by Republic Act No. 8293.
Notwithstanding the change in the law, the same principles are The law also provided for the limitations on copyright, thus:
reiterated in the new law under Section 177. It provides for the
copy or economic rights of an owner of a copyright as follows:
Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright. —
Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the
Sec. 177. Copy or Economic rights. — Subject to following acts shall not constitute infringement of
the provisions of chapter VIII, copyright or copyright:
economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right
to carry out, authorize or prevent the following
(a) the recitation or performance of
acts:
a work, once it has been lawfully
made accessible to the public, if
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substanlial done privately and free of charge
portion of the work; or if made strictly for a charitable
or religious institution or society;
177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49]
abridgement, arrangement or other transformation
of the work; (b) The making of quotations from
a published work if they are
177.3 The first public distribution of the original compatible with fair use and only
and each copy of the work by sale or other forms to the extent justified for the
of transfer of ownership; purpose, including quotations from
newspaper articles and periodicals
177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an in the form of press
audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work summaries; Provided, that the
embodied in a sound recording, a computer source and the name of the
program, a compilation of data and other author, if appearing on the work
materials or a musical work in graphic form,
are mentioned; (Sec. 11 third par. Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila 23
P.D. 49)
On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on parallelism or
xxx xxx xxx repetition of sentence structures, thus:
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, The proposition is peace. Not peace through the
broadcast, or other communication to the public, medium of war; not peace to be hunted through
sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations;
by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is not peace to arise out of universal discord,
compatible with fair use: Provided, That the fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire;
source and the name of the author, if appearing in not peace to depend on the juridical determination
the work is mentioned; 20 of perplexing questions, or the precise marking of
the boundary of a complex government. It is
In the above quoted provisions, "work" has reference to literary simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in
and artistic creations and this includes books and other literary, its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit
scholarly and scientific works. 21 of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific.
A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP — Edmund Burke, "Speech on Criticism." 24
that are similar if not identical with the text of CET.
On page 100 of the book DEP 25, also in the topic of parallel
On page 404 of petitioners' Book 1 of College English for Today, structure and repetition, the same example is found in toto. The
the authors wrote: only difference is that petitioners acknowledged the author
Edmund Burke, and respondents did not.
Items in dates and addresses:
In several other pages 26 the treatment and manner of
He died on Monday, April 15, 1975. presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of
that contained in CET.
Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,
We believe that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of
22 petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and
Manila
her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an
infringement of petitioners' copyrights.
On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English Today,
they wrote:
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not
necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a
He died on Monday, April 25, 1975. large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of
the original work is substantially diminished, there is an
infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is (c) The making of quotations from
appropriated. 27 a published work if they are
compatible with fair use and only
In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter to the extent justified for the
copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration. purpose, including quotations from
To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or newspaper articles and periodicals
even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so in the form of press
much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, summaries: Provided, That the
or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an source and the name of the
injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point author, if appearing on the work,
of law to constitute piracy. 28 are mentioned.
The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no
conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know whether or
appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he
a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril. 30
of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and
infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term The next question to resolve is to what extent can copying be
in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without injurious to the author of the book being copied. Is it enough that
the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole there are similarities in some sections of the books or large
right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the segments of the books are the same?
copyright. 29
In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented
The respondents' claim that the copied portions of the book CET several pages of the books CET and DEP that more or less had
are also found in foreign books and other grammar books, and the same contents. It may be correct that the books being
that the similarity between her style and that of petitioners can not grammar books may contain materials similar as to some
be avoided since they come from the same background and technical contents with other grammar books, such as the
orientation may be true. However, in this jurisdiction under Sec segment about the "Author Card". However, the numerous pages
184 of Republic Act 8293 it is provided that: that the petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and
the manner the books were presented and the identical examples
Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the can not pass as similarities merely because of technical
provisions of Chapter V, the following shall not consideration.
constitute infringement of copyright:
The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be
x x x x x x x x x attributed to the fact that both of them were exposed to the
APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience,
teaching approach and methodology are almost identical because
they were of the same background.
However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have
Robles were of the same background in terms of teaching done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the
experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil
identical even in examples contained in their books. The is her book. To allow another to copy the book without
similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.
present in this case. How can similar/identical examples not be
considered as a mark of copying? WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision
and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 44053
We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of are SET ASIDE. The case is ordered remanded to the trial court
respondent Robles of pulling out from Goodwill bookstores the for further proceedings to receive evidence of the parties to
book DEP upon learning of petitioners' complaint while ascertain the damages caused and sustained by petitioners and
pharisaically denying petitioners' demand. It was further noted to render decision in accordance with the evidence submitted to
that when the book DEP was re-issued as a revised version, all it.
the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion of their book
College English for Today were eliminated. SO ORDERED.