Laktaw v. Paglinawan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Pedro Serrano Laktaw alleged that he was the registered owner and author of the Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog, published in 1889. He claimed that the defendant, Mamerto Paglinawan, without his consent, reproduced a significant portion of his work in his own publication, the Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog, causing irreparable injury and damages amounting to $10,000. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved the defendant, ruling that the defendant's dictionary was not an improper copy of the plaintiff's work, which had been in circulation for over twenty-five years, and thus the plaintiff had no right of action. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the lower court erred in not declaring that the defendant had reproduced his work and violated Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant's dictionary constitutes a reproduction of the plaintiff's work in violation of the Law on Intellectual Property. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court. It ordered the defendant to withdraw from sale all stock of his work, Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog, and to pay the costs of the first instance. No pronouncement was made as to the costs of the Supreme Court instance. The claim for damages was not granted due to lack of sufficient corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reproduction and violation of Intellectual Property Law: The Court found that the defendant's dictionary was indeed a reproduction of the plaintiff's work, contrary to the lower court's finding. A detailed comparison of the two dictionaries, supported by the plaintiff's notes enumerating copied terms and the defendant's own admissions, revealed that out of 23,560 Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, 20,452 were copied from the plaintiff's work. Furthermore, the defendant literally reproduced the Tagalog equivalents, definitions, and meanings, even replicating printer's errors found in the plaintiff's dictionary. The Court clarified that Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, prohibits the reproduction of another's work without consent, irrespective of whether it is an "improper copy"; mere reproduction is sufficient. The Court rejected the lower court's analogy of a dictionary being "common property," citing legal authorities like Danvilla y Collado and Manresa, who affirmed that definitions, examples, and the manner of expressing meanings in a dictionary constitute a protected intellectual work. The Court also affirmed that intellectual property rights acquired under Spanish law, such as the plaintiff's, continue to be respected even after the change of sovereignty, as stipulated in the Treaty of Paris. On the issue of damages: While acknowledging that the reproduction of the plaintiff's book by the defendant caused damages, the Court found that the amount claimed ($10,000) was not sufficiently proven. The plaintiff's statement regarding potential proceeds from printing copies in 1913, which he did not do due to the defendant's reproduction, was based on mere calculations and was not corroborated by any evidence during the trial. Therefore, no pronouncement could be made regarding indemnification for damages.
Main Doctrine
The reproduction of another person's work without the owner's consent, even if not an improper copy, violates the Law on Intellectual Property. The author of a dictionary has exclusive rights to its definitions, examples, and manner of expression, which constitute a special work protected by law.