الفلبين

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 8: Criminal Enforcement

Supreme Court of the Philippines [2022]: Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers Inc. v Anrey Inc., G.R. No. 233918

Date of judgment: August 9, 2022

Issuing authority: Supreme Court of the Philippines

Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)

Plaintiff: Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Inc.

Defendant: Anrey, Inc.

Keywords: Copyright infringement, Public performance, Radio broadcasting

Basic facts:  The Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) is a society authorized by its members to enforce and protect their copyrighted musical works by issuing licenses and collecting royalties or license fees from anyone who publicly exhibits or performs music from FILSCAP’s repertoire. FILSCAP monitored several restaurants owned by Anrey, Inc. in Baguio City and found that copyrighted music was being played in these establishments without authorization or payment of license fees. FILSCAP filed a complaint for copyright infringement against Anrey, Inc. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both ruled in favor of Anrey, Inc., prompting FILSCAP to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Held:  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and found Anrey, Inc. liable for copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court held that FILSCAP, as an assignee and accredited collective management organization, has the authority to collect royalties and/or license fees and to sue for copyright infringement. The unlicensed public performance of copyrighted music in Anrey’s restaurants constituted copyright infringement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the use of copyrighted music in a commercial establishment, even if no direct fee is charged for the music, is for the purpose of enhancing profit and is not covered by the limitations or exceptions to copyright infringement, such as fair use or use for charitable, religious, or educational purposes.

The Supreme Court also clarified that the playing of copyrighted music in restaurants is a commercial use and does not fall under the fair use doctrine or any of the statutory limitations on copyright.

“Neither does the unauthorized transmission of the radio broadcast, which plays copyrighted music, for commercial purposes be treated as fair use... In this case, the reception was transmitted through loudspeakers within Anrey’s restaurants... all for the purpose of economic gain. Clearly, this does not fall under any of the limitations in Section 184 of the [Intellectual Property Code].”

Relevant holdings in relation to Criminal Enforcement:  The Supreme Court outlined the elements of copyright infringement and found them present in this case:

“Part of the economic rights of an owner is the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts enumerated under Sec. 177 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IPC):

177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;

177.2. Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work;

177.3. The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;

177.4. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or 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 of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental;

177.5. Public display of the original or a copy of the work;

177.6. Public performance of the work; and

177.7. Other communication to the public of the work (Sec. 5, P. D. No. 49a)

These acts, when unauthorized by the copyright owner, amount to copyright infringement. But before copyright holders may claim for infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) they must show ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one economic right granted to copyright holders under Sec. 177 of the IPC. A third element may be added and that is the act complained of must not fall under any of the limitations on copyright under Section 184 of the IPC or amounts to fair use of a copyrighted work.”

In this case, the first element of copyright infringement is satisfied as FILSCAP members’ works are protected by copyright, and FILSCAP is authorized “to collect royalties and/or license fees and sue for copyright infringement. As an assignee of copyright, it is entitled to all the rights and remedies which the assignor had with respect to the copyright.”

For the second element, the Supreme Court held that playing radio broadcasts containing copyrighted music in a restaurant through loudspeakers constitutes a “public performance” under Section 177.6 of the IPC. The law defines public performance broadly, covering not only live renditions but also performances “by means of any device or process,” which includes radio receivers:

“171.6 ‘Public performance,’ in the case of a work other than an audiovisual work, is the recitation, playing, dancing, acting or otherwise performing the work, either directly or by means of any device or process; ... in the case of a sound recording, making the recorded sounds audible at a place or at places where persons outside the normal circle of a family and that family's closest social acquaintance are or can be present, ...”

The Supreme Court reasoned that the act of playing radio broadcasts through loudspeakers in a commercial establishment is itself a performance, as it makes the music audible to the public.

The Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of multiple performances, holding that radio reception in a public place creates a new, separate performance distinct from the original broadcast. Thus, even if the radio station has secured a license, the establishment playing the broadcast must also secure a separate license:

“A radio reception creates a performance separate from the broadcast. This is otherwise known as the doctrine of multiple performances which provides that a radio (or television) transmission or broadcast can create multiple performances at once. ... Thus, on whether the reception of a broadcast may be publicly performed, it is immaterial if the broadcasting station has been licensed by the copyright owner because the reception becomes a new public performance requiring separate protection.”

This means that both the broadcaster and the establishment playing the broadcast are considered to be performing the work, each requiring authorization.

The Supreme Court further explained that radio reception in a commercial establishment targets a “new public,” that is, persons outside the normal circle of a family or close acquaintances. This “new public” is not the same as the audience of the original broadcast, thus justifying the need for a separate license:

“But the author normally thinks of the license to broadcast as to “cover only the direct audience receiving the signal within the family circle.” Any further communication of the reception creates, by legal fiction, a “new public” which the author never contemplated when they authorized its use in the initial communication to the public.”

Lastly, for the third element, the Court also clarified that the playing of copyrighted music in restaurants is a commercial use and does not fall under the fair use doctrine or any of the statutory limitations on copyright.

“Neither does the unauthorized transmission of the radio broadcast, which plays copyrighted music, for commercial purposes be treated as fair use. Section 184 of the IPC provides for the limitations on copyright or such acts that do not constitute copyright infringement. As discussed, the public performances of the copyrighted works in this case were not done privately or made strictly for: a charitable or religious institution or society; for information purposes; as part of reports of current events; for teaching purposes; for public interest; or for charitable or educational purpose; or for any judicial proceeding or giving of professional legal advice.

In this case, the reception was transmitted through loudspeakers within Anrey's restaurants... While Anrey does not directly charge a fee for playing radio broadcasts over its speakers, such reception is clearly done to enhance profit by providing entertainment to the public, particularly its customers, who pay for the dining experience in Anrey's restaurants… Surely, Anrey would not put up such radio reception and loudspeakers if not to enhance the overall ambiance and dining experience in its establishments, all for the purpose of economic gain. Clearly, this does not fall under any of the limitations in Section 184 of the IPC.”

Relevant legislation: Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293); Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386).