VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS vs Cielito M. Salud

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DELILAH          VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS,

COURT                  

OF APPEALS,                                   

     

CIELITO M. SALUD, 

CLERK IV, COURT OF APPEALS,      

A.M. No.  CA-05-20-P

Facts: Cielito Salud, Clerk IV, Mailing Section of the Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals (CA) stands charged

with the following offenses:

1.      Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;

2.      Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and

3.      Directly or indirectly having financial and material interest in an official transaction, under Section 22, paragraphs (p), (t) and (u), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law

Melchor Lagua  was charged with Homicide before the Regional Trial Court. Lagua’s bond was approved in a Resolution dated November 6. 2003. Salud was allegedly facilitating the service of the resolution to the National Penitentiary and order the release of Lagua. In the meantime, Atty. Madarang received a telephone call from a certain Melissa Melchor, who introduced herself as Lagua’s relative. It was about 2:00 p.m. The caller asked her how much more they had to give to facilitate Lagua’s provisional liberty. The caller also told Atty. Madarang that they had sought the help of a certain Rhodora Valdez of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, where the criminal case originated, but were told that they still had a balance to be given to Justice Magtolis and Atty. Madarang through the respondent. Atty. Madarang then called the said court and asked to speak to Ms. Valdez, pretending to be Lagua’s relative. Atty. Madarang. On November 11, 2003, Justice Magtolis called the respondent to her office. When confronted, the respondent denied extorting or receiving money for Lagua’s release, or in any other case. He, however, admitted serving the copies of resolution and order of release intended for Lagua and his counsel to Art Baluran. Justice Magtolis then called the respondent to a meeting with Clerk of Court Atty. Tessie L. Gatmaitan, who stated that she would transfer the respondent to another office which has nothing to do with cases.

                       

Issue: Whether or not the admission of text messages as evidence against Salud constitutes a violation of his right to privacy being an ephemeral electronic communication?

Held: Respondent Cielito M. Salud is found GUILTY of inefficiency and gross misconduct.

The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral electronic communication” under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and “shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.” Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the first three messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone.

Anna Jane Lihaylihay v Judge Alejandro Canda

ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY,                         A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659

Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,

Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga

del Norte,

                                   Complainant,

                   - versus -

JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA,

Municipal Circuit Trial Court,

Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte,

                              Respondent.

Facts:  On 25 February 2005, one Camilo Bandivas retired from service as Sheriff IV. Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda asked Process Server Emmanuel Tenefracia to apply for the position. A certain Jesus V. Alimpolo also applied for the same position. Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting Alimpolo in his application and so he sent an SMS to the latter saying, “Maayo tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin masabit ka, pakiusap lang ni.”  Taking the text message as a threat, Lihaylihay reported it to the police and requested that a blotter entry be made.  On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda sent another text message stating, “For maliciously causing it to appear as threatening in the police blotter of what is otherwise a very harmless text message of appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, don’t worry you will have your owned [sic] fair share of trouble in due time.

Judge Canda accused Lihaylihay with violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. He also caused the publication of the letter to the desk editor of the Mindanao Observer and asked that it be published in the newspaper.

Lihaylihay denied the allegations of Judge Canda. She also filed a complaint against Judge Canda or sexual harassment alleging that he sent text message to Lihaylihay that were malicious. Deciding on lihaylihay’s case, the Court admonished Lihaylihay for her irresponsible behavior. The Court in judging the complaint against Judge Canda stated that he is liable for gross misconduct.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Canda should be liable for gross misconduct?

Held: Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he asked her to stay away from Alimpolo; (2) when she reported the matter to the police, he took it as a “declaration of war” and warned her that she will have her “fair share of trouble in due time”; (3) indeed, three days after sending the threatening text message, he filed a complaint with Judge Tomarong accusing her of several things, asking that she be disciplined and removed from the service, and describing her as a “GRO,” “undignified,”     a “whore,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,” and “pakialamera”; (4) two days after filing the first complaint, he filed another complaint accusing her of violating office rules and describing her as “offensive,” “demeaning,” “inappropriate,” a “GRO,” “undignified,” “repulsive,” and a “whore”;       (5) still unsatisfied, he had his second complaint published in the newspaper; and (6) when she published her comment in the newspaper, he filed a criminal case for libel against her.   

         Section 1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states that “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.”  Section 2, Canon 2 of the Code states that “The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary.”  Section 2, Canon 4 of the Code states that “As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.  In particular,judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.”  Section 6, Canon 4 of the Code states that “Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression x x x, but in exercising such [right], they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office.”  Section 6, Canon 6 of the Code states that “Judges shall x x x be x x x dignified and courteous.”  Judge Canda violated these provisions.

               

                Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious offense.  It is punishable by (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from reinstatement to any public office; (2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three months but not exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.

         The Court notes that this is Judge Canda’s second offense.  In Barbarona v. Judge Canda^] the Court fined him for violation of Circular No. 1-90 and warned him that the repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.  Considering the gravity of Judge Canda’s offense and the fact that this is his second offense, the Court fines him P40,000. 

         The charges that Judge Canda sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages and that he failed to pay the required legal fees are unsubstantiated, thus, they must be dismissed.  In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the allegations in the complaint.  The Court cannot rely on mere conjectures or suppositions 

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC of Cebu, Br. 19, BANGPAI SHIPPING COMPANY, and WALLEM SHIPPING, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

G.R. No. 170491             April 4, 2007

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, 

vs.

HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC of Cebu, Br. 19, BANGPAI SHIPPING COMPANY, and WALLEM SHIPPING, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

FACTS: On April 20, 1996, M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated by private respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly bumped and damaged petitioner’s Power Badge 209 which was then moored at the Cebu International Port. Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the private respondent Bangspai Shipping Co., for the alleged damages caused on their power barges.

​Petitioner adduced evidence and made a formal offer thereof. The public respondent judge denied the admission and excluded from the records some of the documents submitted by the petitioner as evidence supporting their complaint on the ground that despite the opportunity given to them, they failed to present the originals of the Xerox or photocopies of the documents it offered. NAPOCOR justified the admission by saying that the “photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the document” using the provisions of the Electronic Evidence. The defendant’s objected this claim saying that Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic evidence as defines in Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Electronic Evidence. They assailed further that the Xerox copies were not received, recorded, retrieved or produced electronically and required to be authenticated when offered as evidence.

Issue: Whether or not the photocopies offered by the petitioner as formal evidence before the trial court are the functional equivalent of their original based on the Rules on Electronic Evidence?

Held: The Supreme Court found the arguments of the petitioner untenable.

Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures or other models of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved or affirmed which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. The rules use the word "information" to define an electronic document received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. This would suggest that an electronic document is relevant only in terms of the information contained therein, similar to any other document which is presented in evidence as proof of its contents. Petitioner’s argument that since the paper were produced through an electronic process, then it is deemed to be an electronic document is not tenable as what differentiates an electronic document from a paper based document is the manner by which the information is processed.

Further, the court is with the belief that the acceptance of the documents submitted by the petitioners will violate the Best Evidence Rule under the Rules of Court. The petitioner did not provide any reason as to why they cannot produce the originals of the photocopies. There is no attempt to justify the same using the exceptions under the Best Evidence Rule.

Hence, the Supreme Court denied NAPOCOR’s petition and upheld the decision of the lower court.

LOURDES S. ESCALONA, vs CONSOLACION S.

LOURDES S. ESCALONA,          vs

CONSOLACION S. PADILLO,               

Court Stenographer III,

   A.M. No. P-10-2785

September 21, 2010

FACTS: Complainant Lourdes Escalona filed a complaint against Consolasion S. Padillo, Court Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 260, Pranaque City alleging an act of Grave Misconduct.

Escalona in her complaint claimed that she was referred to Padillo to help her facilitate the filing of the case against LoresetteDalit. Padillo allegedly asked for a payment of Php 20,000 for payment for the prosecutor. Escalona asked if she can just givePhp 15,000, Padillo accepted the payment. Subsequently, Padillo informed Escalona that the prosecutor was not amenable to Php15, 000 and so Escalona gave the additional Php 5,000 to Padillo for the service of the warrant of arrest. She was also asked to submit a barangay clearance and to first take an oath before Prosecutor Antonio Arquiza, Jr. and later before Napoleon Ramolete.However, upon checking, there was no record of the case against Dalit, causing Escalona to confront Padillo for the return of her money.

Escalona withdrew her complaint against Padillo as the latter was able to return her money. Notwithstanding this, the Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock sent two notices to Padillo requiring her to comment on the complaint but to no avail. Subsequent show cause memos were sent to Padillo requiring her to explain why she should not be administratively dealt with her for the failure to submit the required comments.

The Court Administrator in his memorandum found Padillo guilty  of grave misconduct for soliciting money from Escalona in exchanged for facilitating the filing of case against Dalit. Further, it stated that, “Padillo’s act of soliciting money from Escalonais an offense which merited the grave penalty of dismissal from the service. However, considering that Padillo tendered her resignation on 18 February 2007, a month after the complaint was filed but did not and has not filed any claim relative to the benefits due her, the Court Administrator recommended that all benefits due her, except accrued leave credits, be forfeited and that she be disqualified from reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations”.

Issue: Whether or not Escalona committed a grave misconduct?

Held: Yes, the act of soliciting is a violation of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel as provided in Section 2, Canon 1, “that “(C)ourt personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.” . The affidavit of desistance submitted by Escalona is of no moment as such withdrawal of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint. Further, the termination ofEscalona’s employee is well within Section 52 (A)(11) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which also provides that dismissal is the penalty for improper solicitation even if it is the first offense. Section 58(a) of the same Rule provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and KOREAN AIRLINES, respondents.

G.R. No. 152392.  May 26, 2005]

EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and KOREAN AIRLINES, respondents.

Facts: Korean Airlines is a corporation established in the Republic of South Korea and licensed to do business in the Philippines.

​On 6 September 1999, Korean Airlines filed a complaint against Expertravel Tours through KAL’s counsel, Atty. Mario A. Aguinaldo, for the collection of Php 260,150.00 plus attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. The verification and the certification against non- forum shopping was signed by Atty. Aguinaldo as the resident agent and legal counsel of KAL who caused the preparation of the complaint.

​ETI filed for a motion to dismiss on the ground that Atty. Aguinaldo was not authorized to sign in the Verification and the Certification for Non- Forum Shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. KAL opposed ETI’s claim saying that Atty. Aguinaldo was indeed their legal counsel. KAL was given a period of 10 days within which to submit a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to execute the said legal documents.​

KAL submitted an affidavit executed by its general managerSuk Kyoo Kim alleging that the Board of Directors conducted a special teleconference on June 25, 1995 which he and Atty. Aguinaldo attended. He also averred that it is on the same teleconference where it was approved to authorize Atty. Aguinaldo to execute the verification and certification of non forum shopping. However, the corporation had no written copy of the said resolution.

The trial court issued an order dismissing the motion of ETI taking into account the claims of Atty. Aguinaldo and Suk KyooKim. ETI filed a motion for the reconsideration contending that it was inappropriate for the court to take judicial notice of the teleconference without prior hearing which the court also denied. ETI filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus and a motion for reconsideration but was both denied by the Court of Appeals assailing that the challenged documents are well within and in compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing that the submission that the teleconference and the resolution authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo was a mere fabrication; also, petitioner averred that there are no rulings on the matter of teleconferencing as a means of conducting meetings of board of directors for purposes of passing a resolution and that the supposed holding of a special meeting on June 25, 1995 through teleconferencing was not able to mention where it was held citing the requirement of a valid board resolution to be submitted the SEC and its record thereof.

Issue: Whether or not resolutions passed by the Board of Directors via teleconference are valid resolutions per the requirements of the Corporation Code?

Held: The Supreme Court found merit on the arguments cited by the petitioners.

The courts may take judicial notice that business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing using the modern technology. In the Philippines, by virtue of the SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15 issued on November 30, 2001, it provides the guidelines to be complied with related to such conferences. Thus, it accepts teleconference as a valid way to relate with a group of persons relating to business transactions or corporate governance.

However, in the case, Atty. Aguinaldo and Suk Kyoo Kim alleged that they participated in a teleconference along with the KAL’s Board of Director, this allegation was not supported by a fact that the board resolution was duly passed specifically to authorize Atty. Aguinaldo to file the complaint and execute the required certification against forum shopping. This is in effect makes the documents not compliant with the requirement of the Rules of Court.

The Supreme Court granted the petition of the ETI and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Copyright on the language of http://

Access to variety of works including articles, books, audiovisual and multimedia files has been made convenient thru the use of internet. Internet now becomes a library where all sorts of information are readily available for downloading either for free or for a fee.

Downloading of files from the internet has become a normal course of people in cases where they need access to any information, documents, and multimedia files. With the hype of technology and easy access to information thru internet, controls need to be set to protect the rights of owners of information and to enforce obligations against people who exploit information.

Countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand have proposed necessary controls to protect the rights of the authors, specifically, copyright, in relation to their works readily available in the internet. In the United States, Representative Lamar S. Smith introduced the bill Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which aims to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. The act includes measures where courts can order the barring of advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites as well as prevent search engines from linking to websites that violate the law. The courts can also require internet service providers to block access to these websites. Another proposed bill in the US on the other hand, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), aims to give the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to “rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing counterfeited goods” especially those registered outside US. This Law authorizes the Justice Department of the US to seek court order against violating websites. Furthermore,

 PIPA states that “an information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order…and delete all hyperlinks to the offending internet site”.

Like in United States, the United Kingdom has its own law on protecting intellectual properties – theDigital Economy Act 2010. This Law explains the function of UK’s Office of Communications to make provisions about online infringement of copyright, penalties for infringement of copyright, and performer’s rights. The Law also states the enforcing 

of controls over internet domain, providers, and for other related purposes.

New Zealand on the other hand has implemented a Three Strike rule against internet piracy where, generally, a copyright tribunal can issue fines and can remove access to the internet for a significant period of time should an individual infringe the country’s copyright laws.

In the Philippines, Republic Act 8792 otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Law of the Philippines, protects the right of the authors by virtue of Section 177 provides:

Copyright 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;

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; (n)

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)

The act of downloading the materials in the internet like blog articles, audiovisual, and multi media , is not within the expressed list of prohibition in the abovementioned section 177. The Law explicitly prohibits any person not authorized by the author to reproduce, adapt, dramatize, distribute, lease, display, perform and communicate the work in the public but did not say any infringement which relates to downloading from the internet. It is however required for a person who uses a work of another to attribute the work by mentioning the name of the author in the work as prescribed in section 193 of the code;

Section 193. Scope of Moral Rights. - The author of a work shall, independently of the economic rights in Section 177 or the grant of an assignment or license with respect to such right, have the right:

193.1. To require that the authorship of the works be attributed to him, in particular, the right that his name, as far as practicable, be indicated in a prominent way on the copies, and in connection with the public use of his work;

193.2. To make any alterations of his work prior to, or to withhold it from publication;

193.3. To object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, his work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation; and

193.4. To restrain the use of his name with respect to any work not of his own creation or in a distorted version of his work. (Sec. 34, P.D. No. 49)

Further, to address Online Piracy in the country, there is a bill being proposed patterned after SOPA and PIPA where the government is given authority to likewise, shut down local websites illegally distributing pirated software and applications, block international sites which distribute copyrighted materials, and impose penalties to those who will infringe the right of the copyright owners. This bill aims to protect the rights of the growing number of bloggers, writers, and artists who use internet as platform for their artistic and literary

 works.

Just like the critics of PIPA and SOPA bills, the proposed bill on Online Piracy concerns freedom of expression which is a constitutional right of the people.  The question whether the copyright of the authors may run against the freedom of expression of the person who will be found infringing or violating the supposed law on online piracy should be addressed.

For most people, internet is a way of life. Internet is not only used as a social platform to establish network, it is also used for communication, expression of ideas, employment, and as repository of information. With the passage of the bill, the government is given the authority to shut down the sites defying copyright laws and penalize its owners. This authority will have the power to constraint not only the website owner’s right to express their works thru their respective websites but further constraint the people from the supposed information that they could access through these sites. The act of shutting down or blocking off the websites may be a form of constraint against freedom of expression of its owners. Using the balance of interest test in constitutional law, freedom of expression, a constitutional right is supreme over property right of the Copyright owners.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18953353

FAN ART: LEGALITY IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT

Fan Art is defined as an art based on a character, costume, collage, item or story that was created by someone other than the artist, such as  “fan” from where the word was  derived .  Fan Art likewise  refers to an art derived from visual media such as comics, movies, or video games.[1] The Fan Art materials are created by “fans” in appreciation of the author or creator’s art work by giving their own expression on the piece, may it be a character, story, video games or even movies.

Fan works on Marvel series, Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Mario brothers are among the famous pieces of fan art in the market. These were created by the fans, followers and advocates of these characters based on their own expression and art orientation. “Fans” are able to provide their own sense of expression of a particular idea introduced by an original work of art.

Copyright in general enables the State to protect the authors of literary and artistic works from unauthorized use and benefit by people other than the author. It provides for the rights of the author against unauthorized reproduction, distribution and display of his work.

Fan Art is based on an original work or creation. The idea as set in the original work is used by fan artists in the creation of their own representative art works. Does the use then in fan art of the idea set by the author of the original work considered as an infringement of their copyright?  Does the State allow the legality of fan art?

Republic Act No 8293, otherwise known as the Law on Copyright provides for Derivative Works; which  requires that there must be  an “original work” from which the “new work” was derived[2]. Section 173 specifically provides that:

                Section 173.     Derivatives Works.-

                                173.1  The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright:

                                a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements,               

                                and other alterations of literary or artistic works; and

b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilation of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents.

173.2.  The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection 173.1 shall be protected as new works; Provided however, that such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works employed or any part thereof or be construed to imply any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works[3].

With the foregoing provision, it can be implied that the use, exclusive to the enumeration in Section 173, of the artistic or literary work is allowed by the law and that the product of such use is given a recognition as that of a  new work. 

  

In the case of Fan Art, such can be considered as a derivative work having been derived from an original work, following the above mentioned provision saying among others that adaptations, abridgements and arrangements of literary or artistic works are considered new works. Fan Art therefore  is considered a new work because it is a byproduct of the fan artist’s expression and interpretation of a prior original work; it is a result of the mental labor of the artists in interpreting an original work.  

Fan Art is a form of expression by one about an existing original work. Such being an expression of ideas though produced by an existing original work, should enjoy the same level of protection as that of an original creation.

Everybody has the right to protect its property including original creations. Artistic and Creative works are creations of mind translated into a visual form. These are expressions that the artists have of the world, a character or an idea. Such expression whether original or a derivative from the original should be protected in any way possible  as recognized by the law.

                                                                       

  

                                        

---

[1] http://thetvdb.com/wiki/index.php/Fan_Art

[2] The Copyright Law of the Philippines, Dennis Funa, First Edition 2011

[3] Republic Act No. 8293, An act prescribing the intellectual property code and establishing the Intellectual Property Office, providing for its powers and functions, and for other purposes