Scribd
Upload
122 views

Habana vs. Robles

The document discusses a copyright infringement case between the authors of two English textbooks. It finds that the respondent copied substantial portions of discussions and examples from the petitioners' book without attribution, which constitutes copyright infringement. To determine infringement, the amount copied is important, and copying that diminishes the original work's value or substantially appropriates the original author's work is sufficient to establish infringement.

Uploaded by

Gabrielle Dayao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views

Habana vs. Robles

The document discusses a copyright infringement case between the authors of two English textbooks. It finds that the respondent copied substantial portions of discussions and examples from the petitioners' book without attribution, which constitutes copyright infringement. To determine infringement, the amount copied is important, and copying that diminishes the original work's value or substantially appropriates the original author's work is sufficient to establish infringement.

Uploaded by

Gabrielle Dayao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

3. G.R. No. 131522. July 19, 1999.

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO, petitioners, vs. FELICIDAD
C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., respondents
Doctrine: In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted
work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even
a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is
sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent
appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.
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.
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. 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, hence, on July 7, 1988, petitioners filed with the RTC, Makati, a complaint for “Infringement
and/or unfair competition with damages” against private respondents. The RTC dismissed the complaint
and the CA affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
Issue: WON, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET,
respondents committed no copyright infringement
Held: Yes. 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:
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion 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:
(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,
On page 404 of petitioners’ Book 1 of College English for Today, the authors wrote:
Items in dates and addresses:
He died on Monday, April 15, 1975.
Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,
Manila 
On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English Today, they wrote:
He died on Monday, April 25, 1975.
Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila
On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on parallelism or repetition of sentence structures. On page
100 of the book DEP,25 also in the topic of parallel structure and repetition, the same example is found in
toto. The only difference is that petitioners acknowledged the author Edmund Burke, and respondents did
not.
We believe that respondent Robles’ act of lifting from the book of petitioner’s substantial
portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an
infringement of petitioners’ copyrights.
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It 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. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even
a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is
sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent
appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.
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 and did not acknowledge petitioners as her
source. 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy