GR L 5967; (January, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5967; January 31, 1955
PABLO OCAMPO and RUFINO DE LA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. HON. TIBURCIO TANCINCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and JOSE COCHINGYAN, respondents.
FACTS
On May 13, 1952, petitioners Pablo Ocampo and Rufino de la Cruz were separately charged with violation of the Copyright Law in the Court of First Instance of Manila upon complaint of respondent Jose Cochingyan, owner of the Catholic Church Mart. On June 17, 1952, the petitioners filed a civil action against Cochingyan and the Director of Public Libraries for the cancellation of the copyrights granted to the Catholic Church Mart, alleging they were obtained through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. During the hearing of the criminal cases on July 21, 1952, counsel for the petitioners moved for an indefinite postponement of the trial, arguing that the civil action for cancellation constituted a prejudicial question that must be decided first. The respondent judge denied the motion and set the criminal cases for hearing. After a motion for reconsideration was denied, the petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition to stop the criminal trial until after the civil case is decided. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued. Pablo Ocampo’s petition to withdraw from the case was granted on November 27, 1953, leaving Rufino de la Cruz as the sole petitioner.
ISSUE
Whether the civil action for cancellation of copyrights on the ground of fraud constitutes a prejudicial question that must be decided first before the trial in the criminal cases for infringement of copyright may proceed.
RULING
No. The civil action for cancellation of copyrights is independent from the criminal prosecution for infringement and does not constitute a prejudicial question. The determination of the issue in the civil action is not necessarily prejudicial to the criminal cases. Until cancelled, the copyrights are presumed to have been duly granted and issued. As a general rule, a criminal case should be decided first. If a trial is to be suspended due to a prejudicial question, it is the civil, not the criminal, action that should be suspended—the criminal case must take precedence. The petition is dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction is discharged, with costs against petitioner Rufino de la Cruz.