View full case

PACITA I. HABANA v. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case are the authors and copyright owners of published works entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity), Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1. They discovered that another published work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) was strikingly similar to their own book, CET, in terms of contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations, and illustrative examples. The petitioners believed that several pages of DEP were copied from their book, constituting plagiarism and copyright infringement.

The petitioners made demands for damages and for respondents to cease further selling and distributing the infringing copies. However, the respondents ignored these demands, prompting the petitioners to file a complaint for "Infringement and/or unfair competition with damages" against them. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal while deleting the award for attorney's fees.

The petitioners now appeal this decision, arguing that the courts erred in affirming the dismissal of their complaint.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondents committed copyright infringement despite the similarity between their book and petitioners' book.

  2. Whether or not there was animus furandi on the part of respondents in refusing to withdraw the copies of their book from the market.

  3. Whether or not respondent Robles abused a writer's right to fair use.

  4. Whether the copying of portions of the plaintiffs' book in the defendant's book constitutes infringement of copyright.

  5. Whether the similarity between the defendant's style and that of the plaintiffs is a valid defense.

  6. Whether the copying of the book without acknowledgment constitutes infringement of copyright.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found merit in the petition. The Court held that respondents committed copyright infringement by lifting substantial portions of discussions and examples from petitioners' book without acknowledgement. The Court further held that the refusal to withdraw the copies of the infringing book from the market constituted bad faith. Lastly, the Court ruled that respondent Robles abused the writer's right to fair use by failing to acknowledge the source of the copied material.

  2. Yes, the copying of portions of the plaintiffs' book in the defendant's book constitutes infringement of copyright. Substantial reproduction of a book does not necessarily require that the entire work or a large portion of it be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished or the original author's labors are substantially appropriated by another, that is sufficient to constitute piracy.

  3. No, the similarity between the defendant's style and that of the plaintiffs is not a valid defense. Even if the defendant and the plaintiffs have the same background and teaching experience, it is not an excuse for them to have identical examples and material contents in their books. Similarity in examples and material contents can be considered as evidence of copying.

  4. The court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the case to be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the damages caused and sustained by the petitioners. The trial court was also instructed to render a decision based on the evidence submitted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Copyright protection is governed by Republic Act No. 8293, which provides for the exclusive rights of the owner of a copyright.

  • Copyright infringement occurs when there is unauthorized reproduction or use of a substantial portion of a copyrighted work.

  • The inclusion of a work in a publication for teaching purposes is allowed under fair use, provided that the source and the name of the author are mentioned.

  • Copyright limitations do not apply if there is bad faith on the part of the infringer.

  • Infringement of copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the copyright owner. It is the doing of anything that only the owner has the right to do.

  • To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or a large portion of the work be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished or the labors of the original author are substantially appropriated, that is sufficient to constitute piracy.

  • Quotations from a published work are allowed if they are compatible with fair use and to the extent justified for the purpose, provided that the source and the name of the author are mentioned.

  • The final product of an author's toil is her book, and to allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is an injury to the author.

  • Copying a book without appropriate acknowledgment constitutes an infringement of copyright.