(13)

COPYRIGHT || BGM
JOAQUIN v. DRILON should have been presented in order to
G.R. No. 108946 | January 28, 1999| Mendoza, J. determine whether there was probable cause
ORIGINAL WORKS for copyright infringement.
Dating games
This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners seek to annul ISSUE

the resolution of the Department of Justice, dated
Whether or not the mechanics of a show is entitled to
August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27854,
copyright protection. (NO)
entitled Gabriel Zosa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of Quezon
City and Francisco Joaquin, Jr., and its resolution, dated Whether or not there is a need to present master tapes
December 3, 1992, denying petitioner Joaquins motion (YES)
for reconsideration.
HELD

FACTS
NO. The format of a show is not copyrightable.

BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder of a Section 2 of P.D. No. 49 (Decree on Intellectual
Certificate of Copyright of a dating game show Property), enumerate the classes of work
named Rhoda and Me. BJPI submitted to the entitled to copyright protection. The format or
National Library an addendum to its certificate of
mechanics of a television show is not included
copyright specifying the shows format and style of
in the list of protected works in 2 of P.D. No.
presentation. While watching tv, Joaquin (President of
BJPI) saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of Its a Date! 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by
which is produced by IXL Productions (IXL). the law cannot be extended to cover them.
He wrote a letter to the President of IXL, Zosa, Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a
informing him that BJPI had a copyright to
statutory right. It is a new or independent right granted
Rhoda and Me and demanding that Its a
by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing right
Date be discontinued.
regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the
Both shows have the same substance because two rights are only such as the statute confers, and may
matches are made between a male and a female, both be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the
single, and the two couples are treated to a night or two subjects and by the persons, and on terms and
of dining and/or dancing at the expense of the show. conditions specified in the statute.
So, the major concepts are the same.
P.D. No. 49, 2, in enumerating what are subject to
Zosa apologized and wanted to settle but IXL didnt copyright, refers to finished works and not to
stop airing the show. Joaquin sent a second letter in concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea,
which he reiterated his demand to discontinue Its procedure, process, system, method of operation,
a Date. concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form
Meanwhile, Zosa registered IXLs copyright to in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or
the first episode of Its a Date and he was embodied in such work.
given a certificate of Copyright by the National
Library. Mere description by words of the general format of
the two dating game shows is insufficient.
So naturally, Joaquin sued Zosa. Sec. of Justice
Drilon moved for the dismissal of the case. The presentation of the master videotape in
Joaquin is contending that BJPIs copyright evidence was indispensable to the
covers only a specific episode of Rhoda and Me determination of the existence of probable
and that the formats or concepts of dating cause.
game shows are NOT covered by copyright
protection. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of
Justice:
Joaquin claims that
A television show includes more than mere words
1. Determination of the question whether the can describe because it involves a whole spectrum
format or mechanics of a show is entitled to of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no
copyright protection is for the court, and not similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely
describing the general copyright/format of both
the Secretary of Justice, to make.
dating game shows.

2. Secretary of Justice gravely abused his
discretion in ruling that the master videotape

BASIL MAGUIGAD | GAITA MASANGKAY | KAT NIETO | JO SANTOS | TYN SISON | ALLEN UY
(13) COPYRIGHT || BGM
YES existence of probable cause in copyright
Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the infringement cases where there is doubt as to the
copyrighted master videotape of the television show true nexus between the master tape and the pirated
Rhoda and Me was not raised in issue during the copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision
preliminary investigation and, therefore, it was error in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that
for the Secretary of Justice to reverse the investigating said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping
prosecutors finding of probable cause on this ground. and inflexible requirement in all or similar
copyright infringement cases.
A preliminary investigation falls under the
authority of the state prosecutor who is given by In the case at bar, during the preliminary investigation,
law the power to direct and control criminal petitioners and private respondents presented
actions. He is, however, subject to the control of the written descriptions of the formats of their
Secretary of Justice. In reviewing resolutions of respective televisions shows, on the basis of which
prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded the investigating prosecutor ruled:
from considering errors, although unassigned, for the
purpose of determining whether there is probable The copyright does not extend to the general
cause for filing cases in court. He must make his own concept or format of its dating game show.
finding of probable cause and is not confined to the Accordingly, by the very nature of BJPIs copyright, the
issues raised by the parties during preliminary investigating prosecutor should have the
investigation. Moreover, his findings are not subject to opportunity to compare the videotapes of the two
review unless shown to have been made with grave shows.
abuse.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Presentation of Master Tape
Petitioners claim that Drilon gravely abused his
discretion in ruling that the master videotape should
have been presented in order to determine whether
there was probable cause for copyright infringement.

Discussion of 20th Century Case vis--vis Columbia
Pictures
In the 20th Century Fox Film Corp vs. CA, it involved
raids conducted on various videotape outlets
allegedly selling or renting out pirated
videotapes. The trial court found that the affidavits of
NBI agents, given in support of the application for the
search warrant, were insufficient without the master
tape. 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 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. This linkage of the copyrighted films to
the pirated films must be established to satisfy the
requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to
the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as
basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

This ruling was qualified in Columbia Pictures vs. CA:
In fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case
regarding the necessity for the presentation of the
master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of
search warrants should at most be understood to
merely serve as a guidepost in determining the
BASIL MAGUIGAD | GAITA MASANGKAY | KAT NIETO | JO SANTOS | TYN SISON | ALLEN UY