G.R. No. 188933, February 21, 2023
PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS & PUBLISHERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. (Home Cable) is a domestic company operating cable television. Respondent Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) is a non-stock, non-profit domestic association accredited by the Intellectual Property Office as a Collective Management Organization (CMO) that assists in protecting the intellectual property rights of its members by licensing performances of their copyrighted music. In 1995 and 1996, Home Cable executed Memoranda of Agreement with Precision Audio Video Service, Inc. (Precision Audio) to purchase laser discs containing videoke materials for broadcast on its cable channels, with Home Cable responsible for operating the channels. In July 1997 and again in January 1998, FILSCAP monitored Home Cable and found it was playing musical compositions of FILSCAP’s members on its channels without securing the necessary licenses. FILSCAP’s demand letters went unheeded. On February 16, 1998, FILSCAP filed a complaint for injunction and damages against Home Cable.

ISSUE

Whether Home Cable’s act of cablecasting videoke channels constitutes copyright infringement, and specifically, whether it violates the separate and distinct economic rights of “public performance” and “communication to the public” under the Intellectual Property Code.

RULING

The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia’s denial of the petition and its finding of Home Cable’s liability for copyright infringement. It expounds on two key points: First, the right of “public performance” and the right of “communication to the public” under the Intellectual Property Code are separate and distinct rights. This is evident from their separate enumeration in Section 177, the exclusionary definition of “public performance” in Section 171.6 which requires perception without the need for communication as defined in Section 171.3, and the distinct treatment of these rights in provisions concerning performers and producers. Second, even prior to the amendment by Republic Act No. 10372, broadcasting musical compositions was considered an exercise of the “communication to the public” right. Home Cable’s act of cablecasting videoke channels to paying subscribers made the works accessible to the public from a place and time individually chosen by them, which is the essence of the “communication to the public” right, not the “public performance” right. The element of end-user control over the specific songs played was not an integral element of “communication to the public” prior to the amendment.