The second hearing in a case filed by Tito and Vic Sotto, and Joey de Leon, known as TVJ, and Jeny Ferre against the Television and Production Exponents Inc. (TAPE), the producer of the noontime show “Eat Bulaga,” and GMA Network was canceled on July 31 after Tito Sotto was unable to submit his judicial affidavit on time.
The Marikina Regional Trial Court Branch 273 scheduled the second hearing on the application for the issuance of writ of injunction in a copyright infringement and unfair competition case filed by TVJ and Ferre.
TAPE inc. and TVJ are in legal dispute over "Eat Bulaga" (Photos from TAPE's Facebook page and "Eat Bulaga 1989" account on Instagram)
TVJ and Ferre filed the case for “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, with Application for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.”
The court is hearing first the part for the application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction before the main case. The first hearing was held on July 27 and the second hearing on July 31.
In filing the case, TVJ is seeking an injunction to stop TAPE from replaying “Eat Bulaga” episodes, segments and audio-visual recordings done before May 31 this year and using the title “Eat Bulaga.”
TAPE and TVJ are in a legal dispute over who owns the “Eat Bulaga” trademark. TAPE earlier said it is the prior registrant of the “Eat Bulaga” trademark with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHIL).
TVJ left “Eat Bulaga” and TAPE, and transferred to TV5 to host the show “E.A.T” starting July 1. “Eat Bulaga” resumed regular programming on June 5 with new hosts.
The July 31 hearing was set by the court to continue the presentation of evidence for TVJ and Ferre.
But during the hearing when Tito Sotto was called to the witness stand as the next witness for TVJ and Ferre, TAPE’s lawyer Maggie Abraham-Garduque and GMA Network’s lawyer Eric Vincent Estoesta objected to his presentation, saying that he did not have a judicial affidavit.
The lawyers cited the Marikina court’s order dated July 14 telling all parties to submit judicial affidavits of their witnesses for the injunction case three days before July 27.
Failure to submit the judicial affidavit within the allowed time will be considered waived. Only the judicial affidavits of De Leon and Ferrer were submitted to the court.
The court, however, allowed Tito Sotto’s presentation and was given three days to file his judicial affidavit but he was fined P5,000 for the non-submission of the document on time. If he fails to submit the judicial affidavit, he will not be allowed to testify in court.
Tito Sotto will be presented in court during the next hearing on Aug. 11 while Ferre will be presented on Aug. 25.
The Supreme Court imposed the Judicial Affidavit Rule starting in 2013 after pilot testing “resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases.”
Judicial affidavits replaced witnesses’ direct testimonies in court.
According to the Supreme Court, a judicial affidavit contains “a statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.”
The Supreme Court rule stated that “a party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.”