GR 188933 Lazaro Javier (Digest)
G.R. No. 188933 , February 21, 2023.
PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS & PUBLISHERS, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Lazaro-Javier in the case. The petitioner, Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc., was involved in transmitting videokes by cable or broadcast. The respondent is the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP). The concurring justice clarifies that her previous opinion in a different case, Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. v. Anrey, Inc., is not controlling here. In that prior case, the act was turning on a radio within hearing distance of customers, which she opined did not constitute appropriation of public performance or communication rights. In contrast, the petitioner’s act in this case falls within the statutory definitions of “communication to the public” under the Intellectual Property Code.
ISSUE
The primary issue addressed in the concurrence is whether the petitioner’s act of transmitting videokes by cable or broadcast constitutes “communication to the public” of copyrighted works under the Intellectual Property Code. A secondary concern raised is the absence of a jurisprudential standard for measuring damages in such infringement cases.
RULING
Justice Lazaro-Javier concurs with the ponencia (the main opinion) to deny the petition and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. She rules that the petitioner’s act is expressly covered by the definitions of “communication to the public” under Sections 171.3 and 202.9, and the provision on remuneration under Section 209 of the Intellectual Property Code. The act of transmitting by cable or broadcast makes the works available to the public in a way that allows access from a place and time individually chosen by them, which constitutes infringement. The concurrence expresses a misgiving regarding the lack of a ruling or established standard for quantifying damages in such infringement cases, noting that neither party raised the issue of damages beyond arguments on liability.