G.R. No. 233918 , August 9, 2022
FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANREY, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, FILSCAP, a copyright collecting society, filed a complaint for copyright infringement against the respondent, Anrey, Inc., which operates a restaurant. The complaint alleged that Anrey publicly performed copyrighted musical compositions within its dining areas without obtaining the necessary license from FILSCAP. The factual scenario involved Anrey playing radio broadcasts containing these copyrighted works as background music through loudspeakers for its customers. The core dispute centered on whether this unlicensed act constituted copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code.

ISSUE

The sole legal issue was whether the unlicensed playing of radio broadcasts as background music in a restaurant’s dining areas amounts to copyright infringement.

RULING

Justice Singh, in a Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred in the result that Anrey is guilty of copyright infringement but dissented from the ponencia’s legal reasoning. The ponencia characterized the act as a “public performance” under Section 171.6 of the IP Code, relying on a U.S. case, Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Claire’s Boutiques, Inc. Justice Singh argued this reliance was misplaced because the U.S. Copyright Act does not distinguish between “public performance” and “communication to the public,” whereas the Philippine IP Code explicitly treats them as distinct economic rights.
Justice Singh clarified that under the IP Code, “public performance” of a sound recording requires the sounds to be made audible without the need for “communication” as defined in Section 171.3. In contrast, “communication to the public” involves making a work available by wire or wireless means. He reasoned that Anrey’s act of playing radio broadcasts via loudspeakers constituted a “communication to the public” under Section 171.3, as it involved transmission via wireless means (radio) to the public within the restaurant. Therefore, the specific right infringed was the right of communication to the public, not the public performance right.
Furthermore, Justice Singh discussed, but ultimately found inapplicable, the potential for a “fair use” exemption for small “mom-and-pop” businesses, analogous to the business exemption under U.S. law. He emphasized the need to balance copyright protection with public interest but concluded that Anrey did not qualify for such an exemption. Consequently, while differing on the specific legal classification of the infringed right, Justice Singh voted to GRANT the petition and find Anrey liable for copyright infringement.