8/9/2019 Bayanihan vs Bmg
2/2
n the herein assaie" D"c()(o# *a$"* D"c"&+"r 1,
200, the Court of Appeas uphe" the chaen#e" or"ers of the tria
court an" accor"in#+"isisse" ,a+anihan petition! thus
D>RE$R! fin"in# neither faw of juris"iction nor taint of
#rave abuse of "iscretion in the issuance of the assaie" $r"ers of
the respon"ent court"ate" Au#ust %&! %''1 an" 0anuar+ 1'! %''%!
the instant petition is ere! the tria court "i" not fin" ape
justifications for the issuance othe writ pra+e" for b+
petitioner.
Hnuestionab+! respon"ent Chan! bein# un"eniab+ the coposer an"
author of the +rics of the two (%) son#s! is protecte" b+ the ere
factaone that he is the creator thereof! conforab+ with Repubic Act
No. %-3! otherwise 8nown as the Intellectual Property Code! Section
17%.% of whichrea"s
/./. Dor8s are protecte" b+ the soe fact of their creation!
irrespective of their o"e or for of e=pression! as we as of their
content! uait+ an"purpose.
An e=aination of petitioner/s verifie" copaint in i#ht of
the two (%) contracts sue" upon an" the evi"ence it a""uce" "urin#
the hearin# on theappication for preiinar+ injunction! +ie"s not
the e=istence of the reuisite ri#ht protectabe b+ the provisiona
reief but rather a in#erin# "oubt onwhether there is or there is no
such ri#ht. he two contracts between petitioner an" Chan reative to
the usica copositions subject of the suit containthe foowin#
i"entica stipuations
7. t is aso hereb+ a#ree" to b+ the parties herein that in the
event the 2H,5S>R :petitioner herein; fais to use in an+ anner
whatsoever withintwo (%) +ears an+ of the copositions covere" b+
this contract! then such coposition a+ be reease" in favor of the
DRR an" e=cu"e" fro thiscontract an" the 2H,5S>R sha e=ecute the
necessar+ reease in writin# in favor of the DRR upon reuest of the
DRR@
=== === ===
-. his contract a+ be renewe" for a perio" of two9an"9one9haf (%
1?%) +ears at the option of the 2H,5S>R. Renewa a+ be a"e b+
the2H,5S>R b+ a"visin# the DRR of such renewa in writin# at east
five () "a+s before the e=piration of this contract.:-;
t wou" thus appear that the two (%) contracts e=pire" on !c$o+"r
1, 1/75 an" March 11, 1/7! respective+! there bein# neither an
ae#ationuch ess proof! that petitioner ,a+anihan ever a"e use of
the copositions within the two9+ear perio" a#ree" upon b+ the
parties.
Anent the cop+ri#hts obtaine" b+ petitioner on the basis
of the sefsae two (%) contracts! suffice it to sa+ /that such
purporte" cop+ri#hts are nopresue" to subsist in accor"ance with
Section %1:a; an" :b;! of the I#$"%%"c$a% ro"r$
Co*"!:1'; because respon"ent Chan ha" put in issue
thee=istence thereof.
t is note" that Chan revo8e" an" terinate" sai" contracts! aon#
with others! on 0u+ 3'! 1--7! or aost two +ears before petitioner
,a+anihanwrote its sort of copaint?"ean" etter "ate"
