GR 153835; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153835 ; February 27, 2008
GMA NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs. VIVA TELEVISION CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) entered into a verbal contract on June 14, 2001, securing rights to air and produce 52 episodes of the game show “The Weakest Link.” Subsequently, respondent Viva Television Corporation (VIVA) entered into a contract on July 17, 2001, with the same format owners for the right to air 130 episodes of the same show. GMA filed for a writ of preliminary injunction to stop VIVA from airing the program, claiming its prior contract conferred exclusive broadcast rights. The trial court granted the injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision.
The Court of Appeals found that GMA’s contract for 52 episodes had become moot after VIVA aired its 55th episode. It also ruled that VIVA was not aware of GMA’s prior contract when it entered its own agreement. GMA petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that broadcast rights are inherently exclusive, that the two contracts cannot coexist, and that the appellate court’s factual findings contradicted those of the trial court regarding VIVA’s knowledge of the prior contract.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying GMA’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction to stop VIVA from airing episodes of “The Weakest Link.”
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The core legal issue was the propriety of issuing a preliminary injunction, which requires a clear showing of a right in esse (a right to be protected) and the existence of an urgent necessity to prevent irreparable injury. The Court found that GMA failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to an exclusive broadcast.
Critically, GMA’s contract was verbal and did not contain an express exclusivity clause. The fact that GMA was granted rights to only 52 episodes out of a total of 130 indicated the format owners’ intent to potentially license the show to another entity. The Court held that the alleged exclusivity, being not expressly stipulated, could not be presumed merely from the nature of a broadcast contract without supporting evidence, such as expert testimony on industry practice. Since GMA did not conclusively prove its right was exclusive, it failed to satisfy the first essential requisite for a preliminary injunction. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the writ was improperly issued. The merits of the underlying case on contract interpretation were left for full trial.