COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC. et. al. v. CA, et. al.
G.R. No. 110318, 28 August 1996
FACTS:
1. Petitioner is a foreign corporation who filed a formal complaint with NBI pursuant to PD 49 and
their anti-film piracy drive. NBI made discreet surveillance on various video establishments
including Sunshine Home Video, Inc. which is owned and operated by private respondent Danilo
Pendario.
2. On 14 November 1987, NBI Senior Agent Lauro Reyes applied for as search warrant with the RTC
of Makati against Sunshine for the seizure of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films. The
application was granted only on the basis of the affidavits and depositions of NBI Senior Agent
Reyes, Baltazar, and Atty. Rico Domingo.
3. Private Respondents moved to Lift the Order of Search Warrant but was initially denied. Later an
MR was filed and was granted, the trial court alleging that the master tapes of the copyrighted
films from which pirated films were allegedly copies, were never presented in the proceedings of
the issuance of the search warrants.
4. Private Respondents further aver the ruling in 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA, et. al. that the
determination of probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant in copyright
infringement cases, the production of the master tape for comparison with the allegedly pirated
copies is necessary.
5. Petitioners appealed from respondent’s MR with the CA but was denied. Hence, it was elevated
to the SC via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not it is necessary to produce the master tape during the determination of probable
cause in cases of copyright infringement involving videograms as per the ruling in 20th Century Fox Film
Corp. v. CA?
RULING: NO.
1. According to petitioners, after complying with what the law then required, the lower court
determined that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and which
determination in fact led to the issuance on 14 December 1987.
2. Private Respondents argument relied on the retroactive application of the 20th Century Fox Film
case.
3. At the time of the issuance of the search warrant, the 20th Century Fox case had not yet been
decided. It was inexistent in December of 1987 when the search warrant was issued. The
formulation of the ruling on the said case therefore cannot be applied.
4. The 20th Century Fox case arose from search warrant proceedings in anticipation of the filing of a
case for the unauthorized sale or renting out of copyrighted films in videotape format in violation
of PD 49. It was held in the said case:
a. The presentation of master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films
were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those.
The presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as
these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not
probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The
court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from
master tapes that it owns.
b. The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity
of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. The applicant must present them
with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether
the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former.
5. In the present case, the lower court lifted the questioned search warrants in the absence of
probable cause that the private respondents violated PD 49. The NBI agents who acted was
witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony which was
the alleged commission of the offense by the private respondents. It was only petitioner’s counsel
that stated that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private
respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the petitioner.
6. The ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyrighted films is always necessary to
meet the requirement of probable cause and that, in the absence thereof, there can be no finding
of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. This should be understood as to merely
serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copyright infringement
cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was copyright infringement?
RULING: YES, there was copyright infringement
1. A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such
cases, did not know what works he was indirectly copying, or did not know whether or not he was
infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at
his peril. It is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been
copied.
2. Private Respondents argue that the issued search warrant was a general warrant, that it was made
applicable to more than one specific offense on the ground that there are as many offenses of
infringement as there are rights protected and, therefore, to issue one search warrant for all the
movie titles allegedly pirated violates the rule that a search warrant must be issued only in
connection with one specific offense. This argument is untenable since the search warrant itself
was issued for violation of Sec. 56, PD 49. The specifications merely referred to the titles of the
copyrighted films.
3. Private respondents also argue that in order to invoke the court’s protective mantle in copyright
infringement cases, there must be compliance with the registration and deposit requirements
under PD 49. Thus, absent such registration, no right was created, hence, no infringement. On 12
December 1978, then Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos clarified that even without prior
registration and deposit of a work which may be entitled to protection, the creator can file action
for infringement for its rights. He cannot demand, however, payment of damages arising from
infringement.
