Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Phil Multi Media Inc (576 SCRA 262)
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Phil Multi Media Inc (576 SCRA 262)
(Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Leonardo-De Castro,* JJ.
PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM,
INC., CESAR G. REYES, FRANCIS
CHUA (ANG BIAO), MANUEL F.
ABELLADA, RAUL B. DE MESA, Promulgated:
AND ALOYSIUS M. COLAYCO,
Respondents. January 19, 2009
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari [1] assails the July 12, 2006
Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 88092 and
90762, which affirmed the December 20, 2004 Decision of the
Director-General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in Appeal
No. 10-2004-0002. Also assailed is the December 11, 2006
Resolution[3] denying the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is
licensed under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines to
engage in television and radio broadcasting. [4]It broadcasts
television programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and
nearby provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through
Channel 2 on Very High Frequency (VHF) and Channel 23 on Ultra
High Frequency (UHF). The programs aired over Channels 2 and
23 are either produced by ABS-CBN or purchased from or licensed
by other producers.
ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern
their programming in accordance with perceived demands of the
region. Thus, television programs shown in Metro Manila and
nearby provinces are not necessarily shown in other provinces.
On May 13, 2002, ABS-CBN filed with the IPO a complaint for
Violation of Laws Involving Property Rights, with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, which was docketed as IPV No. 10-2002-
We were told that, until now, this has been going on.
To address your query on whether or not the provisions of MC 10-102003 would have the effect of amending the provisions of MC 4-08-88
on mandatory carriage of television signals, the answer is in the
negative.
xxxx
On
December
22,
2003,
the
BLA
rendered
a
[14]
decision
finding that PMSI infringed the broadcasting rights and
copyright of ABS-CBN and ordering it to permanently cease and
desist from rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
SO ORDERED.[16]
xxxx
1.
2.
1.
There is transmission
representations thereof;
of
sounds
or
2.
3.
4.
images
or
of
In the case at hand, Appellant is not the origin nor does it claim
to be the origin of the programs broadcasted by the
Appellee. Appellant did not make and transmit on its own but merely
carried the existing signals of the Appellee. When Appellants
subscribers view Appellees programs in Channels 2 and 23, they know
that the origin thereof was the Appellee.
Aptly,
it
is
imperative
to
discern
the
nature
of
broadcasting. When a broadcaster transmits, the signals are scattered
or dispersed in the air. Anybody may pick-up these signals. There is no
restriction as to its number, type or class of recipients. To receive the
signals, one is not required to subscribe or to pay any fee. One only
xxxx
V,
the
xxxx
(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control
of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific
or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and
is compatible with fair use;
This is for the first time that we have a structure that works to
accomplish explicit state policy goals.[30]
xxxx
xxxx
Metro Manila station will benefit the public as such competition will
most likely result in the production of better television programs. [46]
In Eastern
Telecommunications
Philippines,
[51]
International Communication Corporation,
we held:
Inc.
v.
With regard to the issue of the constitutionality of the mustcarry rule, the Court finds that its resolution is not necessary in
the disposition of the instant case. One of the essential requisites
for a successful judicial inquiry into constitutional questions is
that the resolution of the constitutional question must be
necessary in deciding the case. [53] InSpouses Mirasol v. Court of
Appeals,[54] we held:
As a rule, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a
law, if the controversy can be settled on other grounds. The policy of
the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume
that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and
unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This
presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers. This
means that the measure had first been carefully studied by the
legislative and executive departments and found to be in accord with
the Constitution before it was finally enacted and approved. [55]
The
records
show
that
petitioner
assailed
the
constitutionality of Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 by way of
a collateral attack before the Court of Appeals. InPhilippine
National Bank v. Palma,[57] we ruled that for reasons of public
policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be collaterally
attacked. A law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a
competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly
pleaded in the trial court.[58]
charge when the main case has already been disposed of in favor
of PMSI would be circuitous. Where the issues have become moot,
there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the
resolution of the same of no practical use or value. [64]
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Designated as additional member of the Third Division in view of the retirement of Associate Justice Ruben T.
Reyes, per Special Order No. 546 dated January 5, 2009.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 8-43.
[3]
Id. at 54-57.
[4]
ABS-CBN was granted a franchise under Republic Act No. 7966, entitled AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
[5]
Rollo, p. 316.
[7]
Id. at 317.
[8]
Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Cable Television Systems in the Philippines.
[9]
6.2.1. A cable TV system operating in a community which is within the Grade A or Grade B contours of an
authorized TV broadcast station or stations must carry the TV signals of these stations.
[10]
Rollo, p. 322.
[11]
Id. at 852.
[12]
Id. at 853-854.
[13]
Id. at 857.
[14]
[15]
[16]
Id. at 811.
[17]
Id. at 43.
[18]
[19]
Article III, Section 9 provides: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
[20]
Sec. 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:
xxxx
177.6. Public performance of the work; and
177.7. Other communication to the public of the work (Sec. 5, P. D. No. 49a)
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
E.O. No. 546, Sec. 15. Functions of the Commission. The Commission shall exercise the following functions:
a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities and services, radio
communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph systems, radio and television broadcasting system
and other similar public utilities;
b. Establish, prescribe and regulate areas of operation of particular operators of public service
communications; and determine and prescribe charges or rates pertinent to the operation of such public utility
facilities and services except in cases where charges or rates are established by international bodies or associations
of which the Philippines is a participating member or by bodies recognized by the Philippine Government as the
proper arbiter of such charges or rates;
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio
communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems;
d. Sub-allocate series of frequencies of bands allocated by the International Telecommunications Union to
the specific services;
e. Establish and prescribe rules, regulations, standards, specifications in all cases related to the issued
Certificate of Public Convenience and administer and enforce the same;
f. Coordinate and cooperate with government agencies and other entities concerned with any aspect
involving communications with a view to continuously improve the communications service in the country;
g. Promulgate such rules and regulations, as public safety and interest may require, to encourage a larger
and more effective use of communications, radio and television broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective
competition among private entities in these activities whenever the Commission finds it reasonably feasible;
h. Supervise and inspect the operation of radio stations and telecommunications facilities;
i. Undertake the examination and licensing of radio operators;
j. Undertake, whenever necessary, the registration of radio transmitters and transceivers; and
k. Perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.
[27]
[28]
Rollo, p. 810.
[30]
Id. at 42.
[31]
Fr. Ranhillo Callangan Aquino, Intellectual Property Law: Comments and Annotations, 2003, p. 5.
[32]
SEC. 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence
of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full
employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
[33]
SEC. 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.
[34]
SEC. 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.
[35]
Rollo, p. 40.
[36]
[37]
Id. at 171-174.
[38]
[39]
Id. at 134.
[40]
[41]
Navarro v. Clerk of Court, A.M. No. P-05-1962, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 626, 629.
[42]
[43]
http://www.dreamsatellite.com/about.htm
[44]
Rollo, p. 810.
[45]
Telecom. & Broadcast Attys. of the Phils., Inc v. COMELEC, 352 Phil. 153, 173 (1998).
[46]
[47]
[48]
Gala v. Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 156819, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 431, 444.
[49]
Supra note 9.
[50]
[51]
[52]
Id. at 166-167.
[53]
[54]
[55]
Id. at 774.
[56]
[57]
[58]
Id. at 322-323.
[59]
Joaquin G. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p. 858 (1996),
citing People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937).
[60]
[61]
Id. at 349.
[62]
[63]
Soriano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128938, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 1, 7-8.
[64]
Delgado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137881, August 19, 2005, 467 SCRA 418, 428.