SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19439            October 31, 1964

MAURO MALANG SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MCCULLOUGH PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Tañada Teehankee & Carreon for plaintiff-appellant.
Esposo & Usison for defendant-appellee.

PAREDES, J.:

This is an action for damages based on the provisions of Articles 721 and 722 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, allegedly on the unauthorized use, adoption and appropriation by the defendant company of plaintiff's intellectual creation or artistic design for a Christmas Card. The design depicts "a Philippine rural Christmas time scene consisting of a woman and a child in a nipa hut adorned with a star-shaped lantern and a man astride a carabao, beside a tree, underneath which appears the plaintiff's pen name, Malang."chanrobles virtual law library

The complaint alleges that plaintiff Mauro Malang Santos designed for former Ambassador Felino Neri, for his personal Christmas Card greetings for the year 1959, the artistic motif in question. The following year the defendant McCullough Printing Company, without the knowledge and authority of plaintiff, displayed the very design in its album of Christmas cards and offered it for sale, for a price. For such unauthorized act of defendant, plaintiff suffered moral damages to the tune of P16,000.00, because it has placed plaintiff's professional integrity and ethics under serious question and caused him grave embarrassment before Ambassador Neri. He further prayed for the additional sum of P3,000.00 by way of attorney's fee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Defendant in answer to the complaint, after some denials and admissions, moved for a dismissal of the action claiming that -

(1) The design claimed does not contain a clear notice that it belonged to him and that he prohibited its use by others;chanrobles virtual law library

(2) The design in question has been published but does not contain a notice of copyright, as in fact it had never been copyrighted by the plaintiff, for which reason this action is barred by the