Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Republic vs. Tupaz (G.r. No. 197335)

    Uploaded by

    Alljun Serenado
    Tupaz IV collaborated with the Philippine National Police (PNP) to create new designs for the PNP cap and badge. Tupaz's company, El Oro, was awarded the contract to produce the items despite submitting the second highest bid, as Tupaz held copyrights over the designs. The PNP requested the copyrights be cancelled, arguing they owned the designs. However, the court ruled the designs were derivative works based on pre-existing designs, and Tupaz was entitled to copyright as the creator, since the PNP only provided ideas and concepts while Tupaz applied skill and labor to develop the concrete designs. Furthermore, the PNP did not commission the works or create them as part of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic vs. Tupaz (G.r. No. 197335)

    Uploaded by

    Alljun Serenado
    3K views1 page
    Tupaz IV collaborated with the Philippine National Police (PNP) to create new designs for the PNP cap and badge. Tupaz's company, El Oro, was awarded the contract to produce the items despite submitting the second highest bid, as Tupaz held copyrights over the designs. The PNP requested the copyrights be cancelled, arguing they owned the designs. However, the court ruled the designs were derivative works based on pre-existing designs, and Tupaz was entitled to copyright as the creator, since the PNP only provided ideas and concepts while Tupaz applied skill and labor to develop the concrete designs. Furthermore, the PNP did not commission the works or create them as part of

    Original Title

    REPUBLIC VS. TUPAZ (G.R. NO. 197335)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tupaz IV collaborated with the Philippine National Police (PNP) to create new designs for the PNP cap and badge. Tupaz's company, El Oro, was awarded the contract to produce the items despite submitting the second highest bid, as Tupaz held copyrights over the designs. The PNP requested the copyrights be cancelled, arguing they owned the designs. However, the court ruled the designs were derivative works based on pre-existing designs, and Tupaz was entitled to copyright as the creator, since the PNP only provided ideas and concepts while Tupaz applied skill and labor to develop the concrete designs. Furthermore, the PNP did not commission the works or create them as part of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    Republic vs. Tupaz (G.r. No. 197335)

    Uploaded by

    Alljun Serenado
    Tupaz IV collaborated with the Philippine National Police (PNP) to create new designs for the PNP cap and badge. Tupaz's company, El Oro, was awarded the contract to produce the items despite submitting the second highest bid, as Tupaz held copyrights over the designs. The PNP requested the copyrights be cancelled, arguing they owned the designs. However, the court ruled the designs were derivative works based on pre-existing designs, and Tupaz was entitled to copyright as the creator, since the PNP only provided ideas and concepts while Tupaz applied skill and labor to develop the concrete designs. Furthermore, the PNP did not commission the works or create them as part of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    REPUBLIC V. HEIRS OF TUPAZ IV, G.R. NO.

    197335, 7 SEPTEMBER 2020


    PNP collaborated with Tupaz IV to create the new designs of the PNP cap device and badge. The new design
    was approved for production.

    In the public bidding for the procurement of the new PNP cap devices and badges, El Oro, Tupaz’s company,
    submitted the second highest bid price but was still awarded the contract after they presented certificates of
    copyright registration over the PNP cap device and badge issued in favor of Tupaz. No other manufacturer
    attempted to produce the PNP cap device and badge bearing the new designs for fear of copyright infringement.

    PNP then requested the National Library, and later on the RTC, to cancel said certificates of copyright.

    El Oro and Tupaz alleged that El Oro is the exclusive and official engraver of Philippine heraldry items since
    1953 and that Tupaz's ancestor, Jose T. Tupaz, Jr., developed the original designs on which said present designs
    were based. Hence, El Oro owned the copyright over the new designs and was allegedly the only qualified
    bidder

    HELD:
    Designs Are Copyrightable Derivative Works
    As a rule, derivative works, when produced with the consent of the creator or proprietor of the original works on
    which they are based, be protected as new works. Thus, derivative works can only be copyrighted if they were
    produced with the consent of the creator of the pre-existing designs and if there is distinction between the new
    designs and the pre-existing designs.

    Here, both requisites are present. Tupaz, in collaboration with the PNP and upon its instruction, borrowed
    expressive content from the pre-existing designs of the PNP cap device and badge to create the new designs.

    PNP is Neither Creator Nor Owner of the Copyright


    Furthermore, a creator or an author pertains to someone who transforms an abstract idea into a tangible form of
    expression through the application of skill or labor. Here, the extent of PNP's participation in developing the
    new designs was limited to instructing Tupaz on how the designs should appear in general and what specific
    elements should be incorporated. They merely supplied ideas and concepts. It was Tupaz who used his skill and
    labor to concretize what PNP had envisioned. Therefore, PNP cannot be considered as an author of the new
    designs either in whole or in part.

    In the present case, PNP is not entitled to own the copyright because the designs were neither commissioned
    works nor works created in the course of respondent Tupaz's employment. First, although the parties verbally
    agreed to work together, petitioner did not hire respondent Tupaz's services for a fee or a commission. Tupaz
    rendered his services voluntarily. In other words, the new designs do not qualify as commissioned works.
    Second, there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties at the time the designs were made.

    You might also like