Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
March 7, 2005] Chan, for his part, filed his own answer to the complaint,
thereunder alleging that: (1) it was never his intention to
BAYANIHAN MUSIC vs. BMG divest himself of all his rights and interest over the musical
compositions in question; (2) the contracts he entered into
THIRD DIVISION with Bayanihan are mere music publication agreements
giving Bayanihan, as assignee, the power to administer his
copyright over his two songs and to act as the exclusive
Gentlemen: publisher thereof; (3) he was not cognizant of the application
made by and the subsequent grant of copyrights to
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Bayanihan; and (4) Bayanihan was remissed in its obligations
Court dated MAR 7 2005. under the contracts because it failed to effectively advertise
his musical compositions for almost twenty (20) years, hence,
G.R. No. 166337 (Bayanihan Music Philippines, Inc. vs. BMG he caused the rescission of said contracts in 1997. Chan also
Records (Pilipinas) and Jose Mari Chan, et al.) included in his answer a counterclaim for damages against
Bayanihan.
Subject of this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision
dated December 14, 2004[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA- After hearing the parties, the lower court came out with an
G.R. SP No. 69626, upholding the Order dated August 24, order denying Bayanihan's prayer for TRO, saying, thus:
2001 of the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City, Branch 90,
which found no merit in petitioner's application for the After carefully considering the arguments and evaluating the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, along with the evidence presented by counsels, this Court finds that the
Order dated January 10, 2002, which denied petitioner's plaintiff has not been able to show its entitlement to the relief
motion for reconsideration. of TRO as prayed for in its verified complaint (see Section 4,
Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended),
On July 16, 1973, private respondent Jose Mari Chan (Chan) hence, this Court is of the considered and humble view that
entered into a contract with petitioner Bayanihan Music the ends of justice shall be served better if the aforecited
Philippines, Inc. (Bayanihan), whereunder the former application is denied.
assigned to the latter all his rights, interests and participation
over his musical composition "Can We Just Stop and Talk A IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the aforecited application or
While". On March 11, 1976, the parties entered into a similar prayer for the issuance of a TRO is denied.
contract over Chan's other musical composition entitled
"Afraid For Love To Fade". SO ORDERED.
On the strength of the abovementioned contracts, Bayanihan Thereafter, the same court, in its subsequent Order
applied for and was granted by the National Library a dated August 24, 2001,[2]cralaw likewise denied Bayanihan's
Certificate of Copyright Registration for each of the two prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to wit:
musical compositions, thus: November 19, 1973, for the song
"Can We Just Stop and Talk A While" and on May 21, 1980,
for the song "Afraid for Love To Fade." After carefully going over the pleadings and the pertinent
portions of the records insofar as they are pertinent to the
issue under consideration, this Court finds that the plaintiff
Apparently, without the knowledge and consent of petitioner has not been able to show its entitlement to the relief of
Bayanihan, Chan authorized his co-respondent BMG Records preliminary injunction as prayed for in its verified complaint
(Pilipinas) [BMG] to record and distribute the aforementioned (see Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
musical compositions in a then recently released album of as amended), hence, this Court is of the considered and
singer Lea Salonga. humble view that the ends of justice shall be served better if
the aforecited application is denied, (see also Order dated
In separate letters both dated December 7, 1999, petitioner July 16, 2001).
Bayanihan informed respondents Chan and BMG of its
existing copyrights over the subject musical compositions and IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the application or prayer for
the alleged violation of such right by the two. Demands were the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is denied.
made on both to settle the matter with Bayanihan. However
no settlement was reached by the parties.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, on August 8, 2000, Bayanihan filed with the Regional
Its motion for a reconsideration of the same order having
Trial Court at Quezon City a complaint against Chan and
been likewise denied by the trial court in its next Order of
BMG for violation of Section 216 of Republic Act No. 8293,
January 10, 2002,[3]cralaw petitioner Bayanihan then went to
otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines, with a prayer for the issuance of Temporary the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, thereat
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69626, imputing grave abuse of
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction,
discretion on the part of the trial court in issuing the Orders of
enjoining respondent BMG from further recording and
August 24, 2001 and January 10, 2001, denying its prayers
distributing the subject musical compositions in whatever form
for a writ of preliminary injunction and motion for
of musical products, and Chan from further granting any
reconsideration, respectively.
authority to record and distribute the same musical
compositions.
In the herein assailed Decision dated December 14,
2004, the Court of Appeals upheld the challenged orders of
In its answer, BMG contended, among others, that: (1) the
the trial court and accordingly dismissed Bayanihan petition,
acts of recording and publication sought to be enjoined had
thus:
already been consummated, thereby rendering moot
Bayanihan's prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction; and
(2) there is no clear showing that petitioner Bayanihan would WHEREFORE, finding neither flaw of jurisdiction nor taint of
be greatly damaged by the refusal of the prayed for TRO grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the assailed
and/or preliminary injunction. BMG also pleaded a cross- Orders of the respondent court dated August 24, 2001 and
claim against its co-respondent Chan for violation of his January 10, 2002, the instant petition is DISMISSED. No
warranty that his musical compositions are free from claims of costs.
third persons, and a counterclaim for damages against
petitioner Bayanihan. SO ORDERED.[4]cralaw
Hence, Bayanihan's present recourse. 9. This contract may be renewed for a period of two-and-
one-half (2 1/2) years at the option of the PUBLISHER.
It is petitioner's submission that the appellate court committed Renewal may be made by the PUBLISHER by advising the
reversible error when it dismissed its petition for certiorari and WRITER of such renewal in writing at least five (5) days
upheld the trial court's denial of its application for a writ of before the expiration of this contract.[9]cralaw
preliminary injunction. Petitioner insists that as assignee of
the copyrights over the musical compositions in question, it It would thus appear that the two (2) contracts expired
has a clear legal right to a writ of preliminary injunction; that on October 1, 1975 and March 11, 1978, respectively, there
respondents BMG and Chan violated its copyrights over the being neither an allegation, much less proof, that petitioner
same musical compositions; that despite knowledge by Bayanihan ever made use of the compositions within the two-
respondent BMG of petitioner's copyrights over the said year period agreed upon by the parties.
musical compositions, BMG continues to record and distribute
the same, to petitioner's great and irreparable injury. Anent the copyrights obtained by petitioner on the basis of the
selfsame two (2) contracts, suffice it to say 'that such
We DENY. purported copyrights are not presumed to subsist in
accordance with Section 218[a] and [b], of the Intellectual
We have constantly reminded courts that there is no power, Property Code,[10]cralaw because respondent Chan had put
the exercise of which is more delicate and requires greater in issue the existence thereof.
caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or which is more
dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an It is noted that Chan revoked and terminated said contracts,
injunction. A court should, as much as possible, avoid issuing along with others, on July 30, 1997, or almost two years
the writ which would effectively dispose of the main case before petitioner Bayanihan wrote its sort of
without trial. complaint/demand letter dated December 7, 1999 regarding
the recent "use/recording of the songs 'Can We Just Stop and
Here, nothing is more evident than the trial court's abiding Talk A While' and 'Afraid for Love to Fade,'" or almost three
awareness of the extremely difficult balancing act it had to (3) years before petitioner filed its complaint on August 8,
perform in dealing with petitioner's prayer for injunctive reliefs. 2000, therein praying, inter alia, for injunctive relief. By then, it
Conscious, as evidently it is, of the fact that there is manifest would appear that petitioner had no more right that is
abuse of discretion in the issuance of an injunctive writ if the protectable by injunction.
following requisites provided for by law are not present: (1)
there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be Lastly, petitioner's insinuation that the trial court indulged in
protected; and (2) the act against which the injunction is to be generalizations and was rather skimpy in dishing out its
directed is a violation of such right,[5]cralaw the trial court reasons for denying its prayer for provisional injunctive relief,
threaded the correct path in denying petitioner's prayer the same deserves scant consideration. For sure, the manner
therefor. For, such a writ should only be granted if a party is by which the trial court crafted its challenged orders is quite
clearly entitled thereto.[6]cralaw understandable, lest it be subjected to a plausible suspicion
of having prejudged the merits of the main case.
Of course, while a clear showing of the right to an injunctive
writ is necessary albeit its existence need not be conclusively WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED.
established,[7]cralaw as the evidence required therefor need
not be conclusive or complete, still, for an applicant, like SO ORDERED.
petitioner Bayanihan, to be entitled to the writ, he is required
to show that he has the ostensible right to the final relief
Very truly yours,
prayed for in its complaint.[8]cralaw Here, the trial court did not
find ample justifications for the issuance of the writ prayed for
by petitioner.
Unquestionably, respondent Chan, being undeniably the Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International Inc.
composer and author of the lyrics of the two (2) songs, is U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
protected by the mere fact alone that he is the creator thereof, March 9, 1995
conformably with Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as 49 F.3d 807, 34 USPQ2d 1014
the Intellectual Property Code, Section 172.2 of which reads: [Editor's note: This case is discussed in Legal Protection of
Digital Information in:
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, Chapter 2, Section III.C. (Methods of Operation).]
irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of
their content, quality and purpose. Stahl, J.
An examination of petitioner's verified complaint in light of the This appeal requires us to decide whether a computer
two (2) contracts sued upon and the evidence it adduced menu command hierarchy is copyrightable subject matter. In
during the hearing on the application for preliminary particular, we must decide whether, as the district court <34
injunction, yields not the existence of the requisite right USPQ2d 1016> held, plaintiff-appellee Lotus Development
protectable by the provisional relief but rather a lingering Corporations copyright in Lotus 1-2-3, a computer
doubt on whether there is or there is no such right. The two spreadsheet program, was infringed by defendant-appellant
contracts between petitioner and Chan relative to the musical Borland International, Inc., when Borland copied the Lotus 1-
compositions subject of the suit contain the following identical 2- 3 menu command hierarchy into its Quattro and Quattro
stipulations: Pro computer spreadsheet programs. See Lotus Dev.
Corp. v. Borland Intl, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 78 [22 USPQ2d
7. It is also hereby agreed to by the parties herein that in 1641] (D. Mass. 1992) (Borland I); Lotus Dev.
the event the PUBLISHER [petitioner herein] fails to use in Corp. v. Borland Intl, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 203 (D. Mass. 1992)
any manner whatsoever within two (2) years any of the (Borland II); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Intl, Inc., 831 F.
compositions covered by this contract, then such composition Supp. 202 [30 USPQ2d 1081] (D. Mass. 1993) (Borland
may be released in favor of the WRITER and excluded from III); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Intl, Inc.,831 F. Supp. 223
this contract and the PUBLISHER shall execute the [30 USPQ2d 1081] (D. Mass. 1993) (Borland IV).
necessary release in writing in favor of the WRITER upon
request of the WRITER; I. Background
PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. Respondent Robles was impleaded in the suit because
FERNANDO, petitioners, vs. FELICIDAD C. she authored and directly committed the acts of infringement
ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., complained of, while respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc.
INC., respondents. 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
DECISION with obvious connivance with one another.
PARDO, J.: On July 27, 1988, respondent Robles filed a motion for a
bill of particulars[6] which the trial court approved on August
The case before us is a petition for review 17, 1988. Petitioners complied with the desired
on certiorari[1] to set aside the (a) decision of the Court of particularization, and furnished respondent Robles the
Appeals[2], and (b) the resolution denying petitioners motion specific portions, inclusive of pages and lines, of the
for reconsideration,[3] in which the appellate court affirmed the published and copyrighted books of the petitioners which
trial courts dismissal of the complaint for infringement and/or were transposed, lifted, copied and plagiarized and/or
unfair competition and damages but deleted the award for otherwise found their way into respondents book.
attorneys fees.
On August 1, 1988, respondent Goodwill Trading Co.,
The facts are as follows: Inc. filed its answer to the complaint[7] and alleged that
petitioners had no cause of action against Goodwill Trading
Co., Inc. since it was not privy to the misrepresentation, Appellee Robles has fully explained that the portion or
plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of the portions of material of the book claimed by appellants to have been
the book of petitioners; that there was an agreement between copied or lifted from foreign books. She has duly proven that
Goodwill and the respondent Robles that Robles guaranteed most of the topics or materials contained in her book, with
Goodwill that the materials utilized in the manuscript were her particular reference to those matters claimed by appellants to
own or that she had secured the necessary permission from have been plagiarized were topics or matters appearing not
contributors and sources; that the author assumed sole only in appellants and her books but also in earlier books on
responsibility and held the publisher without any liability. College English, including foreign books, e.i. Edmund Burkes
Speech on Conciliation, Boerigs Competence in English and
On November 28, 1988, respondent Robles filed her Broughtons, Edmund Burkes Collection.
answer[8], and denied the allegations of plagiarism and
copying that petitioners claimed. Respondent stressed that
(1) the book DEP is the product of her independent xxx
researches, studies and experiences, and was not a copy of
any existing valid copyrighted book; (2) DEP followed the Appellants reliance on the last paragraph on Section 11 is
scope and sequence or syllabus which are common to all misplaced. It must be emphasized that they failed to prove
English grammar writers as recommended by the Association that their books were made sources by appellee.[15]
of Philippine Colleges of Arts and Sciences (APCAS), so any
similarity between the respondents book and that of the The Court of Appeals was of the view that the award of
petitioners was due to the orientation of the authors to both attorneys fees was not proper, since there was no bad faith
works and standards and syllabus; and (3) the similarities on the part of petitioners Habana et al. in instituting the action
may be due to the authors exercise of the right to fair use of against respondents.
copyrigthed materials, as guides.
On July 12, 1997, petitioners filed a motion for
Respondent interposed a counterclaim for damages on reconsideration,[16] however, the Court of Appeals denied the
the ground that bad faith and malice attended the filing of the same in a Resolution[17] dated November 25, 1997.
complaint, because petitioner Habana was professionally
jealous and the book DEP replaced CET as the official Hence, this petition.
textbook of the graduate studies department of the Far In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court
Eastern University.[9] erred in affirming the trial courts decision.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a Petitioners raised the following issues: (1) whether or
stipulation of facts[10] and for the trial court to first resolve the not, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential
issue of infringement before disposing of the claim for similarity between DEP and CET, respondents committed no
damages. copyright infringement; (2) whether or not there was animus
After the trial on the merits, on April 23, 1993, the trial furandi on the part of respondent when they refused to
court rendered its judgment finding thus: withdraw the copies of CET from the market despite notice to
withdraw the same; and (3) whether or not respondent Robles
abused a writers right to fair use, in violation of Section 11 of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby orders
Presidential Decree No. 49.[18]
that the complaint filed against defendants Felicidad Robles
and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED; that said We find the petition impressed with merit.
plaintiffs solidarily reimburse defendant Robles for
P20,000.00 attorneys fees and defendant Goodwill for The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the
P5,000.00 attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are liable for cost of suit. 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
protection of copyrights is governed by Republic Act No.
8293. Notwithstanding the change in the law, the same
Done in the City of Manila this 23rd day of April, 1993. principles are reiterated in the new law under Section 177. It
provides for the copy or economic rights of an owner of a
(s/t) MARVIE R. ABRAHAM SINGSON copyright as follows:
Assisting Judge
S. C. Adm. Order No. 124-92[11] Sec.177. Copy or Economic rights.Subject to the provisions of
chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the
On May 14, 1993, petitioners filed their notice of appeal exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following
with the trial court[12], and on July 19, 1993, the court directed acts:
its branch clerk of court to forward all the records of the case
to the Court of Appeals.[13] 177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of
In the appeal, petitioners argued that the trial court the work;
completely disregarded their evidence and fully subscribed to
the arguments of respondent Robles that the books in issue 177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgement,
were purely the product of her researches and studies and arrangement or other transformation of the work;
that the copied portions were inspired by foreign authors and
as such not subject to copyright. Petitioners also assailed the 177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each
findings of the trial court that they were animated by bad faith copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of
in instituting the complaint.[14] ownership;
On June 27, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered
judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill 177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or
Trading Co., Inc. The relevant portions of the decision state: 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
It must be noted, however, that similarity of the allegedly of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the
infringed work to the authors or proprietors copyrighted work
subject of the rental; (n)
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 177.5 Public display of the original or copy of the work;
this case.
177.6 Public performance of the work; and
177.7 Other communication to the public of the work [19] We believe that respondent Robles act of lifting from the
book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and
The law also provided for the limitations on copyright, examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her
thus: book is an infringement of petitioners copyrights.
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It
Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright.-- Notwithstanding the does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work,
provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute or even a large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken
infringement of copyright: that the value of the original work is substantially diminished,
there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious
(a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it extent, the work is appropriated.[27]
has been lawfully made accessible to the public,
if done privately and free of charge or if made In determining the question of infringement, the amount
strictly for a charitable or religious institution or of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important
society; [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49] consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary
that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have
(b) The making of quotations from a published work been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original
if they are compatible with fair use and only to is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are
the extent justified for the purpose, including substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by
quotations from newspaper articles and another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.[28]
periodicals in the form of press summaries;
Provided, that the source and the name of the The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in
author, if appearing on the work are mentioned; conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an
(Sec. 11 third par. P.D.49) appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a
copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and
xxxxxxxxxxxx occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore,
protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy,
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in
broadcast, or other communication to the public, the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of
sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is
by way of illustration for teaching purposes and conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.[29]
is compatible with fair use:Provided, That the
source and the name of the author, if The respondents claim that the copied portions of the
appearing in the work is mentioned;[20] book CET are also found in foreign books and other grammar
books, and that the similarity between her style and that of
In the above quoted provisions, work has reference to petitioners can not be avoided since they come from the
literary and artistic creations and this includes books and same background and orientation may be true. However, in
other literary, scholarly and scientific works.[21] this jurisdiction under Sec 184 of Republic Act 8293 it is
A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book provided that:
DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions
On page 404 of petitioners Book 1 of College English for of Chapter V, the following shall not constitute infringement of
Today, the authors wrote: copyright:
He died on Monday, April 15, 1975. (c) The making of quotations from a published work
Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue, if they are compatible with fair use and only to
Manila[22] the extent justified for the purpose, including
quotations from newspaper articles and
On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English periodicals in the form of press
Today, they wrote: summaries:Provided, That the source and the
name of the author, if appearing on the work,
He died on Monday, April 25, 1975.
are mentioned.
Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila[23]
A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and
On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on
it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know
parallelism or repetition of sentence structures, thus:
whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least
knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at
The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium his peril.[30]
of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of
intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out The next question to resolve is to what extent can
of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts copying be injurious to the author of the book being copied. Is
of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical it enough that there are similarities in some sections of the
determination of perplexing questions, or the precise books or large segments of the books are the same?
marking of the boundary of a complex government. It is
In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners
simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its
presented several pages of the books CET and DEP that
ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace,
more or less had the same contents. It may be correct that
and laid in principles purely pacific.
the books being grammar books may contain materials
similar as to some technical contents with other grammar
--- Edmund Burke, Speech on Criticism.[24] books, such as the segment about the Author Card. However,
the numerous pages that the petitioners presented showing
On page 100 of the book DEP[25], also in the topic of similarity in the style and the manner the books were
parallel structure and repetition, the same example is found in presented and the identical examples can not pass as
toto. The only difference is that petitioners acknowledged the similarities merely because of technical consideration.
author Edmund Burke, and respondents did not.
The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be
In several other pages[26] the treatment and manner of attributed to the fact that both of them were exposed to the
presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience,
that contained in CET. teaching approach and methodology are almost identical
because they were of the same background.
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. How can similar/identical
examples not be considered as a mark of copying?
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 latters research work and compilation and misrepresented
them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for
commercial use and did not acknowledge 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 (b).Quotations from a published work if
they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent
justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper
articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries are
allowed provided that the source and the name of the author,
if appearing on the work, are mentioned.
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 authors toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book
without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R.
CV No. 44053 are SET ASIDE. The case is ordered
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to receive
evidence of the parties to ascertain the damages caused and
sustained by petitioners and to render decision in accordance
with the evidence submitted to it.
SO ORDERED.