G.R. No. 166391 . October 21, 2015.
Microsoft Corporation, Petitioner vs. Rolando D. Manansala and/or Mel Manansala, doing business as Dataman Trading Company and/or Comic Alley, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Microsoft Corporation is the copyright and trademark owner of various Microsoft software programs. Respondent Rolando D. Manansala, doing business as Dataman Trading Company and/or Comic Alley, was engaged in distributing and selling Microsoft computer software programs without authority from Microsoft. On November 3, 1997, a private investigator and an NBI agent conducted a test purchase of six pirated CD-ROMs from the respondent. Based on this, a search warrant was issued and served on November 19, 1997, yielding several illegal copies of Microsoft programs. Microsoft filed an Affidavit-Complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for violation of Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 49 (The Copyright Decree). The DOJ State Prosecutor dismissed the charge, stating that while there was evidence of selling, there was no proof that the respondent was the one who printed or copied the software, and recommended a charge for violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code instead. Microsoft’s motion for partial reconsideration and subsequent petition for review with the DOJ were denied. Microsoft then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied, affirming the DOJ’s dismissal. The CA agreed with the DOJ’s interpretation that for liability under Section 5(a) of P.D. 49, all enumerated acts (print, reprint, publish, copy, distribute, multiply, sell, etc.) must be present and proven, and that “sale” alone of pirated copies does not constitute copyright infringement under P.D. 49.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals and the Department of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the mere selling of pirated computer software, without proof that the seller was also the copier or reproducer, does not constitute copyright infringement under Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 49.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and directed the DOJ to charge the respondent. The Court ruled that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charge for lack of evidence. The Court held that the gravamen of copyright infringement under P.D. 49 is the unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered by Section 5, which grants the copyright owner the exclusive right “to print, reprint, publish, copy, distribute, multiply, sell…” The Court rejected the CA’s literal interpretation that the conjunctive “and” in Section 5(a) requires all enumerated acts to be present. Applying rules of statutory construction to avoid absurdity, the Court construed the “and” as having a disjunctive sense, meaning the acts are separate and independent. Therefore, the unauthorized selling of copyrighted works by itself constitutes copyright infringement. There is no requirement to prove that the seller was also the copier. The mere sale of illicit copies was sufficient to establish probable cause for copyright infringement. The public prosecutor and the DOJ acted whimsically and arbitrarily in disregarding settled jurisprudential rules on finding probable cause.