G.R. No.
96597-99 October 6, 1994
Columbia Pictures, Inc, Orion Pictures Corp., Paramount Pictures Corp., Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corp., United Artists Corp., Universal City Studios, Inc., Walt Disney Company And Warner Bros., Inc
vs
Court Of Appeals, TUBE VIDEO ENTERPRISES And EDWARD CHAM, BLOOMING ROSE TAPE
CENTER and MA. JAJORIE T. UY, and VIDEO CHANNEL And LYDIA NABONG
FACTS:
On 07 April 1988, the "NBI", filed with the RTC of Pasig three (3) applications for search warrant
against private respondents Tube Video Enterprises and Edward C. Cham (ASW No. 95), the
Blooming Rose Tape Center and Ma. Jajorie T. Uy (ASW No. 96), and the Video Channel and Lydia
Nabong (ASW No. 97), charging said respondents with violation of Section 56 of Presidential Decree
("P.D.") No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property, as amended by
P.D. No. 1988. The search warrants stated that respondents had in their possession and control the
following:
1. pirated video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films;
2. posters, advertising leaflets, flyers, brochures, invoices, ledgers, and books of account bearing and/or
mentioned the pirated films;
3. television sets, video cassette and/or laser disc recorders, dubbing machines, equipment and other
machines and paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, reproduction, sale
lease or disposition of videograms they are keeping and concealing.
RTC Judge Austria found a just and probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Private
respondents filed their respective motions to quash the three search warrants on the ground that: the
films in question were never registered in the National Library as a condition precedent to the availment of
the protection secured by that decree; the mere publication of its alleged ownership over the films in
question does not ipso facto vest in the right to proceed under P.D. No. 49 as that law requires official
registration. Moreover, the said publication took place only after the application for the questioned search
warrant; and complainants have not proven nor established their ownership over the films.
Judge Austria, nonetheless, reversed her former stand initially finding probable cause for the
issuance of the search warrants and ordered the quashal of the search warrants and ordered the return of
the seized items giving the following reasons:
1. Private complainants were uncertain of their ownership of the titles subject of the seized video
tapes;
2. Complainants did not comply with the requirement that the master tapes should be presented
during the application for search warrants; and
3. Private complainants cannot seek the protection of Philippine laws as they failed to comply with
the deposit and registration requirements of P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988.
Petitioners appealed to the CA but the same was denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which pirated films are supposed
to have been copied should be presented for the validity of the search warrant.
HELD: YES.
This Court, in 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. Court of Appeal has already laid down the rule
that:
The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were
allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their
possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master
tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and
not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants
is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced
from master tapes that it owns.
The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported
pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted
films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine
whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former.
The Court of Appeals is also correct when it ruled that
Applying for the search warrants for the violation of Section 56 of P.D. No. 49 as amended by
P.D. No. 1988 includes not only the sale, lease or distribution of pirated tapes but also the transfer or
causing to be transferred of any sound recording or motion picture or other audio visual work.
But even assuming, as appellants argue, that only the sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video
tapes is involved, the fact remains that there is need to establish probable cause that the tapes being
sold, leased or distributed are pirated tapes, hence the issue reverts back to the question of whether there
was unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound recording or motion picture or other audio
visual work that has been recorded.
