You are on page 1of 3

UP Case

Facts:

Private respondent herein is a citizen of India and a holder of a Philippine visitor's visa. She enrolled in a
doctoral program in anthropology of the University of the Philippines. After completing the units
required for the program, she went on a two-year leave of absence to work in Rome but eventually
came back to work and finish her dissertation.

Before the presentation of her dissertation, Dr. Medina, a dean's representative to the panel, noticed
that some portions of her work were lifted from other works without the proper acknowledgement.
Nonetheless, she was allowed to defend her dissertation. She passed her oral defense, which was
approved by four of the five panelists. However, Dr. Medina didn't sign the approval form, instead he
commented that only when the Petitioner revised her work with proper citations will he sign the
approval form. However, in her final submission of the copy of her dissertation, she failed to incorporate
the necessary revisions. With this development, Dr. Medina formally charged her with plagiarism and
recommended that the doctorate granted upon her be withdrawn. After an investigation, the College of
Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) College Assembly recommended the withdrawal of her doctorate
degree, which was approved by the U.P. Board of Regents. Private respondent filed a petition for
mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and damages against petitioners herein,
alleging that they had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without justification. The trial court dismissed
her petition. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision.

Issue:

1. Whether or not, the court of appeals erred on a question of law in granting the writ of
mandamus and ordering petitioners to restore respondent's doctoral degree.
2. Whether or not, the court of appeals erred on a question of law in holding that the doctoral
degree given respondent by UP cannot be recalled without violating her right to enjoyment of
intellectual property and to justice and equity.

Ruling:

1. The court of appeals decisions was based on grounds that the private respondent was denied of
due process and that she graduated and no longer in the ambit of disciplinary powers of UP.
However, various committees had been formed to investigate the charge that private
respondent had committed plagiarism and, in all the investigations held, she was heard in her
defense. Indeed, if any criticism may be made of the university proceedings before private
respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it is that there were too many committee and
individual investigations conducted, although all resulted in a finding that private respondent
committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of which she was
conferred the Ph.D. degree. Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is
simply the opportunity to explain one's side of a controversy or a chance to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of Private respondent was informed in
writing of the charges against her and afforded opportunities to refute them.
2. The court held that academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of higher learning by Art XIV
of the 1987 Constitution. This freedom includes deciding whom a university will confer degrees
on. If the degree is procured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents, subject to due process
being followed, may cancel that degree.

Art. XIV, Section 5 par. 2 of the Constitution provides that "academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning." It is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus
given "a wide sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such institution of
higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom
it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates.

Habana Case:

Petitioners herein are authors and copyright owners of their published books while respondents Robles
and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are authors and publishers,

respectively, of another published work that was also covered by copyrights issued to them. In the
course of revising their published works, petitioners chanced upon the book of respondent Robles. In
the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked around various bookstores
to check on other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. After an itemized examination and
comparison of the books, petitioners found that several pages of the respondents' book are similar, if
not altogether a copy from the petitioners' book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright
infringement. When respondents ignored demands of petitioners for damages, the latter filed a
complaint for infringement and/or unfair competition with damages.

Whether or not, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET,
respondents committed no copyright infringement.

The Court held that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of
discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of
petitioners' copyrights. It does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large
portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially
diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated. In
determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an
important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not
necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken
that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially
and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.

In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an
"injurious effect". Here, the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners' book
materials that were the result of the latter's research work and compilation and misrepresented them as
her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge petitioners as her
source.

You might also like