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

FACTS

The case involves the cablecasting of videoke laser disc recordings by Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. (Home Cable) on three of its cable channels. The respondent, FILSCAP, complained that this act constituted copyright infringement. The separate concurring opinion delves into the distinction between the economic rights of public performance and the right to communicate a work to the public, as outlined in the Intellectual Property Code. It references the prior case of FILSCAP v. Anrey, Inc., which involved a commercial establishment playing radio broadcasts via loudspeakers (radio-over-loudspeakers) and where the Court found an infringement of the public performance right.

ISSUE

The core issue addressed in the separate concurring opinion is the proper characterization of the infringing act—specifically, whether Home Cable’s cablecasting of videoke recordings violates the right of public performance or the separate right to communicate the work to the public under the Intellectual Property Code.

RULING

The separate concurring opinion concurs in the denial of the petition. It provides a detailed analysis distinguishing the right of public performance from the right to communicate to the public. It explains that historically, under the Berne Convention, the right to communicate to the public was considered part of the broader public performance right. The opinion notes that the inclusion of “other communication to the public” as a distinct economic right in Section 177.7 of the Intellectual Property Code originated from the Philippines’ accession to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), which aimed to address protections in the digital environment. The opinion concludes that traditional forms of communication, such as the radio-over-loudspeakers in the Anrey case, fall under the public performance right. In contrast, communications in the digital landscape, such as internet streaming or, as implied, the cablecasting in this case which makes works accessible from a place and time individually chosen by the public, engage the separate right to communicate to the public under Section 177.7. Therefore, Home Cable’s act of cablecasting is deemed an infringement of the right to communicate the work to the public.