[G.R. No. 161295. June 29, 2005] JESSIE G. CHING, petitioner, vs. WII!" ". S!IN!S, SR., WII!" ". S!IN!S, JR., J#SE$HINE . S!IN!S, JENNI%ER &. S!IN!S, !#N'# S#!I" S# !I"!N !N S!E, S!E, J#HN J#HN ERIC ERIC I. S!IN!S S!IN!S,, N#E N#E ". &!()' *(o+r o- ire/tors +n #--i/ers o- WI!W!RE WI!W!RE $R#)C' C#R$#R!'I#N, C#R$#R!'I#N, responents. %!C'S - Jessie G. Ching is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing Co., the maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as Leaf Spring ye !ushing for "utomobile made up of plastic. - #n September $, %&&', Ching and Joseph (u were issued by the )ational Library Certificates of Copyright *egistration and +eposit of the said work described therein as Leaf Spring ye ye !ushing for "utomobile.$- #n September %&, %&&', Ching reuested the )ational !ureau of /n0estigation 1)!/2 for police3in0estigati0e assistance for the apprehension and prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producers and3or distributors of the works.4- "fter due in0estigation, the )!/ filed applications for search warrants in the *5C of Manila against 6illiam Salinas, Sr. and the officers and members of the !oard of +irectors of 6ilaware 7roduct Corporation. /t was alleged that the respondents therein reproduced and distributed the said models penali8ed under Sections '99.' and '99.: of *epublic "ct 1*.".2 )o. ;%<:. - *5C granted the application and issued Search S earch 6arrants. 6arrants. - *espondents filed a motion to uash on the ground that the sub=ect matter are not artistic in nature> they are automoti0e parts and pertain to technology. - *5C granted the motion and uashed the warrants on the ground of no probable cause. - 7etitioner filed M*, denied. ?iled 7etition for Certiorari on the ground that *5C has no =urisdiction to del0e into and resol0e the 0alidity of the copyright certificates issued to him co0ered by the /ntellectual 7roperty Code. ISS)E 1'2 6hether or not the *5C has =urisdiction to determine 0alidity. 1%2 6hether or not the utility models can be considered literary and artistic works. 1:2 6hether or not Ching@s copyright registration is 0alid. RULING (1) Yes. The RTC had jurisdic jurisdiction tion to delve into and resolve the issue issue whether whether the petitioners utility models are copyrightable and i! so whether he is the owner o! a copy copyri righ ghtt over over the the said said mode models ls.. "t bear bears s stre stress ssin ing g that that upon upon the the #lin #ling g o! the the appli applicat cation ion !or searc search h warra warrant nt the RTC was was duty-b duty-boun ound d to deter determin mine e whethe whetherr probable cause e$isted. %or the RTC RTC to determine whether the crime !or in!ringement under under R.&. .&. 'o. 'o. *+ *+ as allege alleged d in an applic applicati ation on is commit committed ted the petiti petitione onerrapplicant was burdened to prove that (a) respondents ,essie Ching and ,oseph Yu were the owners o! copyrighted material and (b) the copyrighted material was being copied and distributed by the respondents. Thus the ownership o! a valid copyright is essential. () 'o. ut as gleaned !rom the speci#cations speci#cations appended appended to the application application !or a copyright certi#cate #led by the petitioner the said /ea! 0pring ye ushing !or &utomobile is merely a utility model. 2lainly these are not literary or artistic wor3s. "t bears stressing that the !ocus o! copyright is the use!ulness o! the artistic design and its mar3etability. The central in4uiry is whether the article is a wor3 o!
art. 5or3s !or applied art include all original pictorials graphics and sculptural wor3s that are intended to be or have been embodied in use!ul article regardless o! !actors such as mass production commercial e$ploitation and the potential availability o! design patent protection. &s gleaned !rom the description o! the models and their objectives these articles are use!ul articles which are de#ned as one having an intrinsic utilitarian !unction that is not merely to portray the appearance o! the article or to convey in!ormation. "ndeed while wor3s o! applied art original intellectual literary and artistic wor3s are copyrightable use!ul articles and wor3s o! industrial design are not. & use!ul article may be copyrightable only i! and only to the e$tent that such design incorporates pictorial graphic or sculptural !eatures that can be identi#ed separately !rom and are capable o! e$isting independently o! the utilitarian aspects o! the article. 5e agree with the contention o! the petitioner (citing 0ection 161.17 o! R.&. 'o. *+) that the authors intellectual creation regardless o! whether it is a creation with utilitarian !unctions or incorporated in a use!ul article produced on an industrial scale is protected by copyright law. 8owever the law re!ers to a wor3 o! applied art which is an artistic creation. "t bears stressing that there is no copyright protection !or wor3s o! applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic !eatures that cannot be identi#ed separately !rom the utilitarian aspects o! the article. 9+:; %unctional components o! use!ul articles no matter how artistically designed have generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable !rom the use!ul article. "n this case the petitioners models are not wor3s o! applied art nor artistic wor3s. They are utility models use!ul articles albeit with no artistic design or value. & utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any #eld o! human activity which is new and industrially applicable. "t may be or may relate to a product or process or an improvement o! any o! the a!oresaid. 9<7; ssentially a utility model re!ers to an invention in the mechanical #eld. This is the reason why its object is sometimes described as a device or use!ul object. 9<1; & utility model varies !rom an invention !or which a patent !or invention is li3ewise available on at least three aspects= #rst the re4uisite o! inventive step 9<; in a patent !or invention is not re4uired second the ma$imum term o! protection is only seven years 9<+; compared to a patent which is twenty years 9<<; both rec3oned !rom the date o! the application and third the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive e$amination 9<>; and pre!er !or a less complicated system. eing automotive parts they are not ornamental nor artistic creations with incidental utilitarian !unctions or wor3s incorporated in a use!ul article. (+) 'o. 'o copyright granted by law can be said to arise in !avor o! the petitioner despite the issuance o! the certi#cates o! copyright registration and the deposit o! the /ea! 0pring ye ushing and ?ehicle earing Cushion. "ndeed in Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon 9<6; and Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated 9<; the Court ruled that=
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. /t is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a preAeBisting right regulated by it. !eing a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and ma y be obtained and en=oyed only with respect to the sub=ects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. "ccordingly, it can co0er only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description. 5hat the works of the petitioner may be the proper sub=ect of a patent does not entitle him to the issuance of a search warrant for 0iolation of copyright laws. /n Kho v. Court of Appeals$<- and Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated , 4& the Court ruled that these copyright and patent rights are completely distinct and separate from one another, and the protection afforded by one cannot be used
interchangeably to co0er items or works that exclusivel pertain to the others. 5he Court eBpounded further, thus 5rademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. " trademark is any 0isible sign capable of distinguishing the goods 1trademark2 or ser0ices 1ser0ice mark2 of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. /n relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. 7atentable in0entions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human acti0ity which is new, in0ol0es an in0enti0e step and is industrially applicable. "' /"@8T A% &// T8 %AR@A"'@ the instant petition is hereby B'"B !or lac3 o! merit. The assailed Becision and Resolution o! the Court o! &ppeals in
[email protected]. 02 'o. 67<11 are &%%"RB. 0earch 5arrant 'os. 71-<71 and 71-<7 issued on Actober 1> 771 are &''D//B &'B 0T &0"B. Costs against the petitioner. 0A ARBRB.