PACITA I. HABANA vs. FELICIDAD C.

ROBLES

G. R. No. 131522

FACTS:

Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of copyright registration covering their
published works, produced through their combined resources and efforts, entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY
(CET for brevity), Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1.

Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another
published work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition)
which book was covered by copyrights issued to them.

In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on
other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance they came upon the book of respondent Robles and
upon perusal of said book they were surprised to see that the book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of
presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book, CET.

After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books, the petitioners found that several pages of the
respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book, which is a case of plagiarism and
copyright infringement.

Petitioners then made demands for damages against respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist
from further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of respondent Robles' works.

However, respondents ignored the demands, the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for
"Infringement and/or unfair competition with damages" against private respondents.

Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their
permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET. The textual contents and
illustrations of CET were literally reproduced in the book DEP. The plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of
particular portions of the book CET in the book DEP, without the authority or consent of petitioners, and the
misrepresentations of respondent Robles that the same was her original work and concept adversely affected and
substantially diminished the sale of the petitioners' book and caused them actual damages by way of unrealized
income.

Despite the demands of the petitioners for respondents to desist from committing further acts of infringement and for
respondent to recall DEP from the market, respondents refused.

Robles was impleaded in the suit because she authored and directly committed the acts of infringement complained
of, while respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. was impleaded as the publisher and joint co-owner of the copyright
certificates of registration covering the two books authored and caused to be published by respondent Robles with
obvious connivance with one another.

The Trial court rendered its judgment finding that the court hereby orders that the complaint filed against defendants
Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED; that said plaintiffs solidarily reimburse
defendant Robles for P20,000.00 attorney's fees and defendant Goodwill for P5,000.00 attorney's fees. Plaintiffs are
liable for cost of suit.

Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. It must be noted,
however, that similarity of the allegedly infringed work to the author's or proprietor's copyrighted work does not of itself
establish copyright infringement, especially if the similarity results from the fact that both works deal with the same
subject or have the same common source, as in this case.

Appellee Robles has fully explained that the portion or material of the book claimed by appellants to have been copied
or lifted from foreign books. She has duly proven that most of the topics or materials contained in her book, with
particular reference to those matters claimed by appellants to have been plagiarized were topics or matters appearing
not only in appellants and her books but also in earlier books on College English,

ISSUE:
WON, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, respondents
committed no copyright infringement;

RULING:

Yes, there is sequential similarity between DEP and CET. It concludes that the Respondents committed copyright
infringement in the ground that it was injurious because robles misrepresented the Petitioner’s research and work as
his own.

The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that Presidential Decree No. 49 was in force. At present,
all laws dealing with the protection of intellectual property rights have been consolidated and as the law now stands,
the protection of copyrights is governed by Republic Act No. 8293.

ec. 177. Copy or Economic rights. — Subject to the provisions of chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall
consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:

177.1 Reproduction of the work or substanlial portion of the work;

177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgement, arrangement or other transformation of the work;

177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of
ownership;

177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound
recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form,
irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n)

177.5 Public display of the original or copy of the work;

77.6 Public performance of the work; and

177.7 Other communication to the public of the work

The law also provided for the limitations on copyright, thus:

Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not
constitute infringement of copyright:

(a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the public, if done privately
and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious institution or society;
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified
for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press
summaries; Provided, that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work are mentioned; (

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording of film, if
such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the
source and the name of the author, if appearing in the work is mentioned;

"work" has reference to literary and artistic creations and this includes books and other literary, scholarly and scientific
works.

A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET.

We believe that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and
examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.

Substantial reproduction of a book - does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large
portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is an
infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated.

In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important
consideration.
The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an
appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and
occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy,
which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner
of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.

Sec 184 of Republic Act 8293- Limitations on Copyright.

(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified
for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press
summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know
whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied
at his peril.

In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented several pages of the books CET and DEP that more
or less had the same contents. It may be correct that the books being grammar books may contain materials similar
as to some technical contents with other grammar books, such as the segment about the "Author Card". However, the
numerous pages that the petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were
presented and the identical examples can not pass as similarities merely because of technical consideration.

However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the same background in terms of
teaching experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be identical even in examples contained in their
books. The similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this case.

We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of pulling out from Goodwill bookstores
the book DEP upon learning of petitioners' complaint while pharisaically denying petitioners' demand. It was further
noted that when the book DEP was re-issued as a revised version, all the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion
of their book College English for Today were eliminated.

In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an "injurious effect". Here,
the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners' book materials that were the result of the latter's
research work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial
use did not acknowledged petitioners as her source.

Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed.
Petitioners' work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her
own is injury enough. In copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author.
This is precisely what the law on copyright protected, under Section 184.1

In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as
the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book
without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.