Joaquin, Jr. vs. Drilon

The format or mechanics of a television show is not copyrightable; copyright protection extends only to the finished audio-visual recording, not to the underlying concept or format. Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in requiring the presentation of master videotapes to establish probable cause for infringement.

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) held a copyright for the dating game show "Rhoda and Me." In 1991, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw "It's a Date" on RPN Channel 9, produced by IXL Productions, Inc. Joaquin demanded that IXL discontinue airing the show, alleging copyright infringement. IXL continued airing the show, prompting petitioners to file a criminal complaint for violation of P.D. No. 49 against private respondents.

• Copyright Registration: BJPI is the holder of Certificate of Copyright No. M922 for "Rhoda and Me," a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977. On June 28, 1973, BJPI submitted an addendum to the National Library specifying the show's format and style of presentation.
• Alleged Infringement: On July 14, 1991, petitioner Joaquin saw an episode of "It's a Date" on RPN Channel 9, produced by IXL. Joaquin wrote to private respondent Zosa, president of IXL, demanding the show's discontinuance. Zosa apologized but IXL continued airing the show.
• Counter-Registration: On August 14, 1991, private respondent Zosa secured a certificate of copyright from the National Library for the first episode of "It's a Date."
• Criminal Complaint: Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for copyright infringement. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause, concluding that "It's a Date" was practically an exact copy of "Rhoda and Me" based on a point-by-point comparison of the shows' formats.
• DOJ Reversal: Secretary of Justice Drilon reversed the investigating prosecutor, ruling that the presentation of the master videotape was indispensable to determine probable cause and that the format or concept of a dating game show is not copyrightable under P.D. No. 49.

• Petitioner maintained that the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion by invoking the non-presentation of the master tape as fatal to probable cause, since private respondents never raised the issue during the preliminary investigation.
• Petitioner argued that the Secretary of Justice arrogated unto himself the determination of what is copyrightable, an issue exclusively within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.
• Petitioner contended that the presentation of the master tape was unnecessary because the point-by-point comparison of the formats clearly established the nexus between the two shows.

• Respondent countered that petitioners failed to establish probable cause due to their failure to present the copyrighted master videotape of "Rhoda and Me."
• Respondent argued that BJPI's copyright covers only a specific episode of the show and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by copyright protection under P.D. No. 49.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in considering the non-presentation of the master tape and the non-copyrightability of the show's format, despite these issues not being raised by the parties during the preliminary investigation.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the format or mechanics of a television show is entitled to copyright protection under P.D. No. 49.
  • Whether the presentation of the master videotape is indispensable to establish probable cause for copyright infringement.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice did not gravely abuse his discretion. In reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from considering errors although unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause. The Secretary must make his own finding of probable cause and is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during the preliminary investigation.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the format or mechanics of a television show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49 enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection, referring to finished works and not to concepts. Copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of "Rhoda and Me" under P.D. No. 49, §2(M), not the general concept or format. Because the copyright covers audio-visual recordings, the investigating prosecutor must compare the videotapes to determine probable cause; a mere word description of the format is insufficient.

• Idea-Expression Dichotomy — Copyright protection extends only to the expression of an idea and not to the idea itself. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the format or mechanics of a television show, being a concept or idea, is not copyrightable; only the finished audio-visual recording is protected.
• Authority of the Secretary of Justice in Preliminary Investigations — The Secretary of Justice has the authority to reverse the resolution of an investigating prosecutor and is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during the preliminary investigation. The Secretary may consider errors although unassigned for the purpose of determining probable cause.

• "To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable... P.D. No. 49, §2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to finished works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
• "Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause."

• 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 655 (1988) — Cited for the ruling that the presentation of master tapes is necessary for the validity of search warrants in copyright infringement cases to establish the linkage between copyrighted and pirated films. The Court noted this was qualified by subsequent jurisprudence as not a sweeping requirement, but found the presentation necessary in this case because the copyright covers audio-visual recordings, not mere formats.
• Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 144 (1996) — Cited to qualify the 20th Century Fox ruling, holding that the presentation of master tapes is not an inflexible requirement in all copyright infringement cases, but serves as a guidepost where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the printed copies.
• Sangguniang Bayan of Batac, Ilocos Norte v. Albano, 260 SCRA 561 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal actions.

• Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 49 (DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY) — Enumerates the classes of works entitled to copyright protection. The Court held that the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in this list; the copyright covers audio-visual recordings under §2(M).
• Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs the duty of the investigating fiscal and the authority of the Secretary of Justice to review and reverse resolutions of prosecutors. The Court cited this to support the Secretary of Justice's authority to consider unassigned errors in determining probable cause.
• Section 172, Republic Act No. 8293 (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES) — Substantially the same as §2 of P.D. No. 49, enumerating literary and artistic works protected from the moment of creation.
• Section 175, Republic Act No. 8293 (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES) — Denies protection to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such. The Court relied on this to reinforce the idea-expression dichotomy.

Puno, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concurred. Bellosillo, J., took no part.