ABS-CBN vs.

GOZON (REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE)

G.R. No. 195956 March 11, 2015

FACTS:

In 2004 an overseas Filipino worker, Angelo dela Cruz, who was kidnapped by Iraqi militants was
released and was scheduled to return to the Philippines, ABS-CBN and GMA conducted their respective
broadcasts of the OFW’s return.

ABS CBN conducted a live audio-video coverage of the OFW’s Homecoming and allowed, another
broadcasting network, Reuters television Service, to use their live footage under a special embargo
agreement and no other subscriber to reuters was allowed to use the footage without their consent.

GMA, being subscribers to Reuters television service received the live feed from Reuters, then used and
broadcasted the footage on their news program “FLASH REPORT” without first obtaining consent from
ABS-CBN, which is the network who holds exclusive ownership over the footage of the return of the
OFW. GMA contended they were not aware of the embargo agreement. Thereafter ABS-CBN filed the
complaint for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code.

DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra found probable cause to charge the officers and employees of
GMA7 Dela Peña-Reyes, Manalastas, and also Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho for violation of the
Intellectual Property Code (due to copyright infringement).

The court of appeals held that ABS CBN has copyright of its news coverage, but respondents’ act of
airing five seconds of the homecoming footage without notice of the “No Access Philippines” restriction
of the live Reuter's video feed, was undeniably attended by good faith and this, serves to excuse them
from criminal liability under the Intellectual Property Code.

ISSUE:

Whether there is probable cause to find the officers and employees of GMA7 to be held criminally
liable for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Law?

HELD:

YES. The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED ABS-CBN’s petition and ordered RTC to continue with the
criminal proceedings against Grace Dela Peña-Reyes and John Oliver Manalastas due to copyright
infringement.

The other respondents, Atty. Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit Jr., Marissa L. Flores, and Jessica A. Soho
were held not liable for the (criminal) act of copyright infringement. The Court held that their mere
membership in GMA's Board of Directors does not mean that they have knowledge, approval, or
participation in the criminal act of copyright infringement, as there is a need for their direct/active
participation in such act. In addition, there was lack of proof that they actively participated or ordered
Manalastas and Dela Cruz-Pena to broadcast the footage.

In this case the supreme court discussed that there are four instances where there is a requirement to
determine probable cause: there is probable cause during a preliminary investigation stage, a warrant of
arrest or commitment order, in instances of warrantless arrests, in search warrant cases. And in all of
these instances the evidence necessary to establish probable cause is based only on the likelihood of
guilt.

The Supreme Court stated in this case that GMA’s mere rebroadcasting of ABS-CBN’s news
footage without the latter's authority creates probable cause to find GMA's news personnel Manalastas
and Dela Peña-Reyes criminally liable for violating provisions of Intellectual Property Code, since they
have not been diligent in their functions to prevent that footage from being aired on television. They
knew that there would be consequences in carrying ABS-CBN’s footage in their broadcast – which is why
they allegedly cut the feed from Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBN’s logo and reporter.

The Court also stated that Philippine laws on copyright infringement, being based on a special
law, does not require criminal intent (mens rea) and does not support good faith as a defense. The act of
infringement and not the intent is the one that causes the damage.

ABS -CBN's video footage is copyrightable because it is under “audiovisual works and
cinematographic works and works produced by a process to cinematography or any process for making
audiovisual recordings.” It also stated that news or the event itself is not copyrightable. The
Court differentiated idea and expression – idea meant as “a form, the look or appearance of a thing”
while expression is its reality or the “external, perceptible world of articulate sounds and visible written
symbols that others can understand.”

The court also said that determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz footage is subject to fair
use is better left to the trial court where the proceedings are currently pending.