This is the digest of the Neypes v. Court of Appeals where the Neypes Rule originated. It is discussed for Civil Procedure.Full description
Palmares v CA DigestFull description
Perez v. CA digestFull description
agency caseFull description
for Succession classFull description
For Admin LawFull description
case digest
Full description
digest, corporation law
Full description
crim pro
digest creditFull description
Case on Torts and Damages under LiabilitiesFull description
:)
Torts case digest - Ballatan v. CA
l
Tibajia v. CA Case Digest
digestFull description
Oblicon Case.
COLUMBIA PICTURES INC. v CA [237 SCRA 367 (1994)] Nature: Petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA. Ponente: J. Vitug Facts: 07 April 1998: NBI filed with the RTC of Pasig 3 applications for SW against private private responden respondentt (Tube (Tube Video Enterprise Enterprises s – Edward Edward C. Cham; Cham; Blooming Blooming Rose Tape Center – Ma. Jajorie T. Uy; Video Channel – Lydia Nabong) charging them them with with viol violat atio ions ns of Sec. Sec. 56 of PD 49 (Dec (Decre ree e on the the Prot Protec ecti tion on of Intellectual Property) as amended by PD 1988. RTC Judge Judge Aus Austri tria a conso consolid lidate ated d the 3 applic applicati ations ons and condu conducte cted d a joint joint hearing where she made a personal examination of the applicant (NBI Agent Reyes) and his witnesses. Finding just and probable cause, Judge Austria issued the search warrants. Private Respondents filed their “Motion to Quash” the SW citing as grounds that there was no probable cause; the films in question are not protected by PD 1988 in that they were never registered in the National Library as a condition precedent to the availment of the protection; the Motion Picture Association of America have not proven nor established their ownership over the films; etc. Judge Austria reversed her former stand initially finding probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants and ordered their quashal: o Private complainants uncertain of their ownership over the titles; o Complainants did not comply with the requirement that master tapes should be presented during the application for search warrants; o Comp Compla lain inan ants ts fail failed ed to comp comply ly with with the the depo deposi sitt and and regi regist stra rati tion on requirements of PD 49 as amended by PD 1988. Judge Austria also ordered the return of the items seized by virtue of the warrants. CA affirmed the quashal of the SWs. •
•
• •
•
•
•
Issue: WON the SWs were issued with probable cause. NO Ratio: BASIC REQUIREMENT for the validity of search warrants (in cases of this nature) is the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films are supposed to have been copied (20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655). The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial simila similarit rity y of the purpor purported ted pirat pirated ed works works to the copyr copyrigh ighted ted work. work. Hence, 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 films to the pirate pirated d films films must must be establ establish ished ed to satis satisfy fy the requir requireme ements nts of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. According to the CA, in which the SC concurs:
Titles you can't find anywhere else
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Titles you can't find anywhere else
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
It is not correct to say that "the basic fact" to be proven to establish probable cause in the instant cases is not the "unauthorized transfer" of a motion picture that has been recorded but the "sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films." In applying for the search warrants the NBI charged violation of the entire provisions of Section 56 of P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D.No. 1988. This included not only the sale, lease or distribution of pirated tapes but also the transfer or causing to be transferred of any sound recording or motion picture or other audio visual work. But even assuming, as appellants argue, that only the sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes is involved, the fact remains that there is need to establish probable cause that the tapes being sold, leased or distributed are pirated tapes, hence the issue reverts back to the question of whether there was unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound recording or motion picture or other audio visual work that has been recorded Petitions denied.
