12 Ching vs. Salinas, Sr.

JESSIE G. CHING, PETITIONER, VS. WILLIAM M. SALINAS, SR., WILLIAM M.
SALINAS,
JR., JOSEPHINE L. SALINAS, JENNIFER Y. SALINAS, ALONTO SOLAIMAN SALLE, JOHN
ERIC I. SALINAS, NOEL M. YABUT (BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF
WILAWARE PRODUCT CORPORATION), RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 161295, June 29, 2005, SECOND DIVISION, CALLEJO, SR., J.
Key Doctrine: Copyright protection: There is no copyright protection for works of applied art or
industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be identified separately from the
utilitarian aspects of the article.
Utility models different from inventions: A utility model varies from an invention, for which a patent for
invention is, likewise, available, on at least three aspects: first, the requisite of inventive step in a patent
for invention is not required in a utility model; second, the maximum term of protection for a utility
model is only seven years compared to a patent which is twenty years, both reckoned from the date of the
application; and third, the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive examination and
prefer for a less complicated system.
Facts
Jessie G. Ching is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing Co., the maker and
manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile made up of
plastic. In 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued National Library Certificates of Copyright
Registration and Deposit of the said work described therein as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile.
Ching then requested before the NBI for assistance in the apprehension and prosecution of illegal
manufacturers/ producers/ distributors of the works. In this connection, the NBI, armed with a search
warrant, went after William Salinas, Sr. and the members of the Board of Directors of Wilaware
Production Corporation for reproducing and distributing said models prohibited under Sec. 177.1 and
177.3 of RA 8293.
The search yielded Leaf Spring Eye Bushings made of plastic and Diesel Molds, among others.
Salinas, Sr., moved to quash the search warrants for lack of probable cause. They claimed that (1) the
technological works covered by the certificate issued by the National Library are not artistic or literary in
nature, but are solutions to technical problems, and that (2) the models are not original, and as such the
proper subject of a patent, not copyright.
The RTC granted the motion to quash the search warrants for lack of probable cause. The CA
sustained the finding of the RTC.
Issue
Whether or not the RTC erred in quashing the search warrant for lack of probable cause on the ground
that Petitioner owns a copyright over the copyrightable utility models.
Ruling
NO, the RTC did not err in quashing the search warrant for lack of probable cause because Petitioner
cannot own a copyright over the patentable utility models.
Under the Rules of Court (Sec. 4, Rule 126), the trial court must determine if an offense has been
committed and if the accused probably committed it before it issues a search warrant, or before it could
quash a search warrant already issued. The object of the warrant must be a property (a) subject of the
offense; (b) stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or (c) used or intended to be
used as the means of committing an offense.
In this case, Petitioner must prove that (a) she and Joseph Yu own copyrighted material; and (b)
the copyrighted material was being copied and distributed by the respondents. Thus, the ownership of a
valid copyright is essential; otherwise there would be no offense to speak of.
Works of applied art vs. Useful articles

It bears stressing that the focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design, and not its
marketability. The central inquiry is whether the article is a work of art. Works for applied art include all
original pictorials, graphics, and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful
article regardless of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential
availability of design patent protection.
However, useful articles defined as one having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely
to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information are not copyrightable. Indeed, while
works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are copyrightable, useful articles and
works of industrial design are not. A useful article may be copyrightable only if and only to the extent
that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately
from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.
It bears stressing that there is no copyright protection for works of applied art or industrial design
which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of
the article. Functional components of useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have generally
been denied copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful article.
In this case, the facts show that Petitioner’s models are not works of applied art but are utility
models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. In actuality, the personal properties
described in the search warrants are mechanical works, the principal function of which is utility sans any
aesthetic embellishment.
Utility Model vs. Invention

A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity which is new
and industrially applicable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process, or an improvement of any of
the aforesaid. Essentially, a utility model refers to an invention in the mechanical field. This is the reason
why its object is sometimes described as a device or useful object. A utility model varies from an
invention, for which a patent for invention is, likewise, available, on at least three aspects:
first, the requisite of inventive step in a patent for invention is not required in a utility model;
second, the maximum term of protection for a utility model is only seven years compared to a
patent which is twenty years, both reckoned from the date of the application; and
third, the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive examination and prefer for a
less complicated system.

12 Ching vs. Salinas, Sr.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Ching vs. Salinas, Sr.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Ching vs. Salinas, Sr.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESSIE G. CHING, PETITIONER, VS. WILLIAM M. SALINAS, SR., WILLIAM M.

Works of applied art vs. Useful articles

Utility Model vs. Invention

You might also like