[No. 11937. April 1, 1918] 1.

20,452 out of 23,560 Spanish words in Mamerto's

PEDRO SERRANO LAKTAW, plaintiff and dictionary were copied from Pedro's.
appellant, vs. MAMERTO PAGLINAWAN, defendant and 2. SC ordered Paglinawan to withdraw from sale all stock of
appellee. his work and to pay the costs of first instance.
3. Article 7 of the Law of Jan. 10, 1879 : “Nobody may
DOCTRINE: Where one in publishing a Spanish-Tagalog dictionary reproduce another person's work without the owner's
has but copied the equivalents, definitions and different meanings consent, even merely to annotate or add anything to it, or
given in another's Spanish-Tagalog dictionary, although making some improve any edition thereof.”
additions of his own and some unimportant changes in the examples 4. In order that said article may be violated, it is not
to illustrate the meanings of the words, such as substituting necessary, as the court below seems to have understood,
"Tayabas" for "Bulacan" in the expression "Voy a Bulacan" (I am that a work should be an improper copy of another work
going to Bulacan), it is evident that he merely reproduced the previously published. It is enough that another's work has
dictionary of the other author in violation of the Law of January 10, been reproduced without the consent of the owner, even
1879, on Intellectual Property. though it be only to annotate, add something to it, or
improve any edition thereof.
FACTS: 5. Upon examination, it was shown that even the printer's
1. Laktaw was, according to the laws regulating literary errors in the Laktaw's dictionary as to the expression of
properties, the registered owner and author of a literary some words in Spanish as well as their equivalents in
work entitled Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog (Spanish- Tagalog are also reproduced, a fact which shows that the
Tagalog Dictionary) published in Manila in 1889 by the Paglinawan, in preparing his dictionary, literally copied
printing establishment La, Opinión those Spanish words and their meanings and equivalents in
a. Paglinawan, without the consent of the Laktaw, Tagalog from the Laktaw's dictionary.
reproduced said literary work, improperly copied 6. Collado, author of the Law of January 10, 1879 states with
the greater part thereof in the work published by respect to dictionaries and in relation to article 7 of the said
him and entitled Diccionariong Kastila- law: "The protection of the law cannot be denied to the
Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary) author of a dictionary, for although words are not the
b. The act of the Paglinawan, which is' a violation property of anybody, their definitions, the examples that
of article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on explain their sense, and the manner of expressing their
Intellectual Property, caused irreparable injuries different meanings, may constitute a special work. On
to the Laktaw this point, the correctional court of the Seine held, on
c. the damages occasioned to Laktaw by the August 16, 1864, that a dictionary constitutes property,
publication of Paglinawan's work amounted to although some of the words therein are explained by mere
$10,000 definitions expressed in a few lines and sanctioned by
d. Paglinawan denied each and every allegation and usage, provided that the greater part of the other words
prayed for his absolution. contain new meanings; new meanings which evidently
2. The court absolved Paglinawan without making any special may only belong to the first person who published them."
pronouncement as to costs. 7. Therefore, the plaintiff, Laktaw, cannot be denied the legal
a. It ruled that: "Dictionaries have to be made with protection which he seeks, and which is based on the fact
the aid of others, and they are improved by the that the dictionary published by him in 1889 is his property
increase of words. What may be said of a pasture —said property right being recognized and having been
ground may be said also of a dictionary, i e., that granted by article 7, in connection with article 2, of said
it should be common property for all who may law—and on the further fact that said work was reproduced
desire to write a new dictionary, and the by the defendant without his permission.
defendant has come to this pasture ground and
taken whatever he needed from it in the exercise EXTRA INFO:
of a perfect right." 1. On the issue of Laktaw’s non-presentation of certificate
b. The trial court has chosen at random, as is stated of registration of his property rights over the
in the judgment appealed from, some words from dictionary: no trace relative to the issuance of said
said dictionaries in making the comparison on certificate being obtainable in the Division of Archives of
which its conclusion is based, and consequently the Executive Bureau on account of the loss of the
the conclusion reached by it must be inaccurate corresponding records, yet as in the first page of said
and not well founded, because said comparison dictionary the property right of the plaintiff was reserved by
was not complete. means of the words "Es propiedad del autor" (All rights
3. Laktaw moved for a new trial on the ground that the reserved), taken in connection with the permission granted
judgment was against the law and the weight of evidence him by the Governor-General on November 24, 1889, to
presented. print and publish said dictionary, after an examination
a. The motion was denied. thereof by the permanent committee of censors, which
4. Hence, Laktaw appealed to the Supreme Court. examination was made, and the necessary license granted to
a. He alleged that upon comparison of his and him, these f acts constitute sufficient proof, under the
Paglinawan’s dictionaries, it would reveal that the circumstances of the case, as they have not been overcome
latter is an improper copy of his work which has by any evidence on the part of the defendant, showing that
been published and offered for sale for about 25 said plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of
years or more. article 36 of said law, which was a prerequisite to the
enjoyment of the benefits thereof according to the
ISSUE: Whether or not Paglinawan is guilty of violating article 7 of preceding articles, among which is article 7, which is
the Law of January 10, 1879 on Intellectual Property. YES!!! alleged in the complaint to have been violated by the
defendant.
RATIO:
2. On the issue of the cessation of the operation of the Law
of January 10, 1879 in the Philippines upon termination
of Spanish sovereignty: the right of Pedro to invoke said
law in support of the action instituted by him in the present
case cannot be disputed.
a. Indeed the property right recognized and
protected by the Law of January 10, 1879, on
Intellectual Property, would be illusory if, by
reason of the fact that said law is no longer in
force as a consequence of the change of
sovereignty in these Islands, the author of a work,
who has the exclusive right to reproduce it, could
not prevent another person from so doing without
his consent, and could not enforce this right
through the courts of justice.
3. Manresa’s commentary: "He who writes a book, or
carves a statue, or makes an invention, has the absolute
right to reproduce or sell it, just as the owner of land has
the absolute right to sell it or its fruits. But while the owner
of land, by selling it and its fruits, perhaps fully realizes all
its economic value, by receiving its benefits and utilities,
which are represented, f or example, by the price, on the
other hand the author of a book, statue or invention, does
not reap all the benefits and advantages of his own
property by disposing of it, for the most important form of
realizing the economic advantages of a book, statue or
invention, consists in the right to reproduce it in similar or
like copies, everyone of which serves to give to the person
reproducing them all the conditions which the original
requires in order to give the author the full enjoyment
thereof. If the author of a book, after its publication, cannot
prevent its reproduction by any person who may want to
reproduce it, then the property right granted him is reduced
to a very insignificant thing and the effort made in the
production of the book is in no way rewarded."