Section 5(A) of PD 49 provides one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder which is:
(A) To print, reprint, publish, copy, distribute, multiply, sell, and make photographs, photo-engravings, and pictorial illustrations of the works;
Thus, if an individual commits the above act without the authority of the copyright holder, that individual may be liable for copyright infringement.
In 1997, Rolando Manansala was found to be selling Microsoft products (Windows and Microsoft Office) without any authority from Microsoft Corporation. As a result, Microsoft filed copyright infringement cases under PD 49 against Manansala before the prosecution office. The prosecution, after preliminary investigation, indicted Manansala for unfair competition but dismissed the PD 49 cases on the ground that no copyright violation is proved because there was no evidence showing that it was Manansala who unlawfully manufactured the Microsoft products. Microsoft questioned the dismissal of the PD 49 cases before the Court of Appeals but the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The CA explained that Section 5(A) made use of the conjunctive word “and” which means that to be liable for copyright infringement, one must not simply be selling or distributing copyrighted material, the individual must have also been the one who manufactured (printed, reprinted, or published) the copyrighted material and all other acts mentioned in Section 5(A). In this case, there was no proof that Manansala was manufacturing Microsoft products as he was merely caught selling them nor was there proof that he photographed, photo-engraved, and made pictorial illustrations of the copyrighted materials.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA is correct.
HELD: No. In this case, the conjunctive word “and” means “OR.”
It is true that as a rule, the conjunctive word “and” denotes a “joinder or union” of words, phrases, or clause; it is different from the disjunctive word “or” that signals disassociation or independence. However, such general rule may be set aside if adopting such an interpretation results in absurdity or unreasonableness. The conjunctive “and” should not be taken in its ordinary acceptation, but should be construed like the disjunctive “or” if the literal interpretation of the law would pervert or obscure the legislative intent. To accept the CA’s reading and interpretation is to accept absurd results because the violations listed in Section 5(a) of Presidential Decree No. 49 – “To print, reprint, publish, copy, distribute, multiply, sell, and make photographs, photo-engravings, and pictorial illustrations of the works” – cannot be carried out on all of the classes of works enumerated in another section (Section 2) of Presidential Decree No. 49. To hold, as the CA incorrectly did, that the legislative intent was to require that the computer programs be first photographed, photoengraved, or pictorially illustrated as a condition for the commission of copyright infringement invites ridicule.
The mere sale of the illicit copies of the software programs was enough by itself to show the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. There was no need for the copyright holder to still prove who copied, replicated or reproduced the software programs.
