G.R. No.

L-36402 March 16, 1987

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., plaintiffappellant,
vs.
BENJAMIN TAN, defendant-appellee.

FILSCAP posseses various musical compositions, which include "Dahil Sa Iyo",

"Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You."
It filed a complaint for infringement of copyright against Tan for the playing restaurant of
said songs copyrighted in the name of the former.
Tan contends that there is no infringement under Section 3 of the copyright law, so the
complaint states no cause of action. He did not deny of the playing of said songs
issue
The principal issues in this case are whether or not the playing and signing of musical
compositions which have been copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act
3134) inside the establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for
profit within the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines; and
assuming that there were indeed public performances for profit, whether or not appellee can
be held liable therefor.
there were "public performances for profit
playing or singing a musical composition is universally accepted as performing the musical
composition and that playing and singing of copyrighted music in the soda fountain and
restaurant of the appellee for the entertainment of the customers although the latter do not
pay for the music but only for the food and drink constitute performance for profit under the
Copyright Law

The defendant conducts his place of business for profit, and it is public; and the music is
performed for profit.

G.R. No. 131522. July 19, 1999.]

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO, petitioners, vs.
FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., respondents.
Petitioners contended that the respondent, Felicidad C. Robles, being substantially
familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, , lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or
transposed certain portions of their book CET without securing their permission. The
plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of particular portions of the book CET in the
book DEP, without the authority or consent of petitioners, and the misrepresentations of
respondent Robles that the same was her original work and concept adversely affected
the sale of the petitioners' book, causing \hem actual damages by way of unrealized
income.

Roblesfiledheranswer,whereinshedeniedthatsheplagiarizedandcopied,stressingoutthatthe
bookistheproductofherownresearches,studiesandexperiences,andDEPfollowedthescope
andsequenceorsyllabuswhicharecommontoallEnglishgrammarwritersasrecommendedby
theAssociationofPhilippineCollegesofArtsandSciences(APCAS."
ISSUE:

(1)whetherornot,respondentscommittednocopyrightinfringement;

RULING:
Thereisaninfringementbecauseoftherespondentsactofliftingfromthebookofpetitioners
substantialportionsofdiscussionsandexamples,andherfailuretoacknowledgethesameinher
book.somuchistakenthatthevalueoftheoriginalworkissubstantiallydiminished.
Indeterminingthequestionofinfringement,theamountofmattercopiedfromthecopyrighted
workisanimportantconsideration.Toconstituteinfringement,itisnotnecessarythatthewhole
orevenalargeportionoftheworkshallhavebeencopied.
Itwasconsidereds]\asanindiciaofguiltorwrongdoingtheactofrespondentRoblesofpulling
outfromGoodwillbookstoresthenwasrevised.
G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003.]
PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. SHOEMART,
INCORPORATED, and NORTH EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED, respondents.
Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
advertising display units simply referred to as light boxes, which is basically a poster
with backlights. The advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark
Poster Ads, with a Certificate of Copyright.
Metro Industrial Services manufactures the said advertising displays for Pearl and
Dean, and it, offered to construct light boxes for Shoemarts chain of stores, which
was then approved by SM. and Dean filed this instant case for infringement of
trademark and copyright, unfair competition and damages.
ISSUE: Whether an advertising display unit (light box) could be granted copyright
protection (copyright certificate of registration)
HELD:
Although petitioners copyright certificate was entitled Advertising Display Units
(which depicted the box-type electrical devices), its claim of copyright infringement
cannot be sustained.
P & D secured its copyright under the classification class O work. This being so,
petitioners copyright protection extended only to the technical drawings and not to the
light box itself Stated otherwise, even as we find that P & D indeed owned a valid
copyright, the same could have referred only to the technical drawings within the
category of pictorial illustrations. It could not have possibly stretched out to include the
underlying light box. The light box was not a literary or artistic piece which could be
copyrighted under the copyright law.