GR 233918; (August, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 233918, August 9, 2022
FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. (FILSCAP), Petitioner, vs. ANREY, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner FILSCAP, a non-profit society representing composers and publishers, holds the public performance rights to a vast repertoire of copyrighted musical works. It sought to collect annual license fees from respondent Anrey, Inc., which operates several “Sizzling Plate” restaurants in Baguio City. FILSCAP’s monitoring confirmed that copyrighted music from its repertoire was played within these establishments via radio broadcasts. FILSCAP sent demand letters and, upon Anrey’s refusal to secure a license, filed a complaint for copyright infringement seeking damages.
Anrey defended its actions by arguing that it merely tuned in to radio broadcasts intended for public reception. It contended that the radio stations had already paid the requisite royalties, making FILSCAP’s claim a form of double recovery. Furthermore, Anrey claimed the music was played primarily for the benefit of its staff and not for its customers, thus negating the element of a “public performance” under the law.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the act of playing radio broadcasts within a commercial restaurant constitutes a “public performance” of copyrighted music, requiring a separate license from FILSCAP under the Intellectual Property Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Justice Zalameda, ruled in favor of FILSCAP, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Anrey’s act constituted copyright infringement. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of “public performance” under Section 177.4 of the Intellectual Property Code, which includes any communication to the public of a work. The Court emphasized that the law focuses on the place where the communication occurs, not the source.
The Court rejected Anrey’s defense that it was merely receiving a public broadcast. By operating a commercial establishment and playing the music therein, Anrey created a new public venue for the reception of the copyrighted works, distinct from the private, in-home listening the broadcast license originally contemplated. This constitutes a separate “communication to the public” requiring independent authorization. The argument of double recovery was dismissed, as the license fee paid by the radio station covers only its act of broadcasting, not the subsequent commercial exploitation of that broadcast by another entity. The exemption under Section 184(i) for charitable performances was found inapplicable, as Anrey’s restaurants are undisputedly for-profit. Consequently, Anrey was held liable for infringement and ordered to pay compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.