Copyright Assignment and Forgery: What the Supreme Court Ruled

A copyright owner who never signed a Deed of Assignment can lose nothing—because a forged assignment is void from the start. In a 2023 decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that a forged signature means no consent, no valid contract, and no transfer of rights. The ruling also warns that anyone who uses the work based on a forged document may face copyright infringement claims.

Copyright and Assignment Under Philippine Law

Copyright protection in the Philippines is governed by the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293, as amended). The law grants copyright owners exclusive economic rights, including the right to reproduce the work and to distribute copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.

These rights can be transferred to another person through an assignment. The law requires that any assignment or license must be in writing, with a clear indication of the intention to transfer. A Deed of Assignment is the usual document used for this purpose.

But a written document alone is not enough. A valid assignment requires the owner's genuine consent. If the signature on the deed is forged, there was no consent, and the assignment is void ab initio—as if it never existed.

The Dispute: A Forged Deed and a Copyright Infringement Claim

St. Mary's Publishing owned the copyright to educational textbooks. It entered a business arrangement with M.Y. Intercontinental for printing services in China. When St. Mary's faced financial difficulties, M.Y. Intercontinental presented a Deed of Assignment that supposedly transferred the copyright to it. M.Y. Intercontinental then registered the copyright in its own name.

St. Mary's denied signing the deed. Its president, Jerry Vicente S. Catabijan, claimed the signature was forged. The company filed a copyright infringement case against M.Y. Intercontinental.

The Regional Trial Court found the Deed of Assignment to be a forgery, based on handwriting analysis and inconsistencies in testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court saw no reason to disturb these factual findings.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court emphasized that consent is essential to the perfection of any contract. A contract with a forged signature is a fictitious contract, and conveyances made through a forged signature or fictitious deed are void ab initio. Because Catabijan's signature was forged, there was no consent, and the contract of assignment was never perfected.

The Court therefore held that the forged Deed of Assignment did not transfer copyright ownership to M.Y. Intercontinental. The company's subsequent acts of importing, marketing, and selling the textbooks violated St. Mary's exclusive economic rights and constituted copyright infringement.

Practical Takeaways

• Verify signatures before relying on any assignment. A forged signature voids the entire transfer, no matter how official the document looks.
• Do not rely on copyright registration alone. Registration is prima facie evidence of ownership, but it can be challenged and overturned if fraud or forgery is proven.
• Conduct due diligence when acquiring copyrights. Investigate the chain of title and confirm the assignor's identity and signature before entering any transaction.
• Keep proper records and internal controls. Businesses should have clear procedures for executing and reviewing copyright assignment documents to avoid disputes.
• Act quickly if a forgery is suspected. A copyright owner can file an infringement case even if the alleged assignee has already registered the copyright.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.