The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that validated the authority of the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) to protect the owners and holders of copyrighted musical works endorsed to it through deeds of assignment. In a full court decision issued on Feb. 28, 2923 and made public last July 28, the SC denied the petition filed by COSAC, Inc., owner and operator of the Off the Grill Bar and Restaurant in Quezon City.  The SC decision was written by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando. The CA decision affirmed the 2012 ruling of the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) which ordered COSAC to pay FILSCAP damages for unpaid license fees and royalties. While affirming both the RTC and the CA decisions, the SC deleted the award to FILSCAP of P317,050 in damages for unpaid license fees and royalties, and instead ordered COSAC to indemnify FILSCAP in the amount of P300,000 for temperate damages with 12 percent yearly interest from 2006 and six percent interest annually from 2013 until fully paid. On Feb. 3, 2005 and Jan. 13, 2006, a FILSCAP representative who monitored Off the Grill Bar and Restaurant in Quezon City found that the establishment played copyrighted music, either by the band or as background music, without obtaining from FILSCAP a license or paying the corresponding fees. Among the songs rendered by the band were “Ignition,” “If I Ain't Got You,” “Falling in Love With You,” while those mechanically played as background music included “Don't Miss You At All,” “Strong Enough,” and “Don’t Know Why.” FILSCAP advised COSAC to secure the required licenses and sent demand letters on Sept,.20, 2004 and Oct.14, 2004. It said it is a non-stock, non-profit corporation comprised of composers, authors, and music publishers, and is tasked to enforce and protect the performing rights of copyright owners of musical works. It also said it is authorized to issue licenses and collect license fees for the public performance of copyrighted musical works under its repertoire, whether for profit or not, and its authority is contained in deeds of assignments executed by composers/publishers of musical works. When COSAC failed to respond, FILSCAP filed with the RTC on Feb 13, 2006 a complaint for infringement of copyright with damages It told the court that COSAC should be compelled to secure a license and pay royalty fees, damages, and attorney’s fees. When both the RTC and the CA ruled in favor of FILSCAP, COSAC elevated the issue before the SC. In denying COSAC’s petition, the SC said: “All the elements of copyright infringement, (1) ownership of a validly copyrighted material by the complainant (FILSCAP) and (2) infringement of the copyright by the respondent (COSAC), are present in this case. The songs that were played in Off the Grill are copyrighted works, and the copyright owners have a right to enforce their exclusive economic rights. “To be more precise, COSAC is a primary infringer, and also a secondary infringer under the concept of vicarious infringement. This is because as owner of Off the Grill, it allowed the commission of infringing acts when it permitted musical artists or bands to perform copyrighted music (secondary infringer), and played sound recordings as background music (primary infringer) without first procuring a license from the copyright owners (or assignees) of the songs and paying the fee. “By doing so, COSAC unduly enriched itself when it allowed the playing in public of copyrighted songs which in turn paved the way for it to generate more profit without any additional expense to it. This contravenes the aim of copyright laws to protect and compensate authors and the artists, as well as encourage them to produce more creations for the eventual benefit of the public. “FILSCAP's allegation that COSAC is a principal by indispensable cooperation, in a way, finds basis in this rationale. “In view of these, the copyright owners of the musical works can rightly assert their economic rights when their copyrighted songs are being played or performed without their consent or authorization. FILSCAP even asserted that notice and demand from the copyright owner is not required for the infringer to be liable for copyright infringement. “To effectively enforce their economic rights, the copyright owners can designate a society of artists, writers or composers on their behalf, like FILS CAP, as provided by Section 183 196 of the IPC (Intellectual Property Code under Republic Act No. 8293). This designation is achieved through deeds of assignment, exactly how various copyright owners had assigned to FILSCAP the protection and enforcement of their rights on their behalf. “As a final note, the Court acknowledges that FILSCAP, by authority of the deeds/agreements, represents the owners or holders of copyrighted musical works under its catalogue. As the assignee, FILSCAP is tasked to monitor and issue licenses to persons, businesses, establishments, and the like which are interested to play or perform these musical compositions. “Although it seems trivial or outrageous to collect fees for this purpose especially when almost everything is readily accessible to the listening public, the copyright owners are still entitled to be compensated for their creative work. “There is no question that they invested time, creativity, talent, and effort in the creation and development of their compositions. Thus, assigning FILSCAP to pursue their intellectual property rights on their behalf should not be taken against FILSCAP, as it is acting not merely for its own benefit, but for the copyright owners' as well. “Still, FILSCAP's monitoring, licensing, and its other functions should all be exercised within reasonable, proper, and just means.”