JAL vs SIMANGANGR 170141 (April 22, 2008)F ACTS: In this petition for review on certiorari ,petitioner JAL appeals

the: (1) Decision of the CA ordering it to pay respondent Jesus i!angan!oral and e"e!plary da!ages# and ($) %esolution & of the sa!e court denying JAL's !otion for reconsideration( )he facts herein follow: In 1**1,respondent i!angan decided to donate a +idney to his ailing cousin, Loreto i!angan, in ,CLA chool of -edicine in Los Angeles, California,,( (A(%espondent needed to go to the ,nited tates to co!plete his preli!inary wor+.up and donation surgery( /ence, to facilitaterespondent's travel to the ,nited tates, ,CLA wrote a letter to the A!erican Consulate in -anila to arrange for his visa( In due ti!e,respondent was issued an e!ergency ,( ( visa 0y the A!erican 1!0assy in -anila(/aving o0tained an e!ergency ,( ( visa, respondent purchased a round trip plane tic+et fro! petitioner JAL and was issued the corresponding 0oarding pass( 2hile inside the airplane, JAL'sairline crew suspected respondent of carrying a falsified travel docu!ent and i!puted that he would only use the trip to the ,nited tates as a prete"t to stay and wor+ in Japan()he stewardess as+ed respondent to show his travel docu!ents( hortly after, the stewardess along with aJapanese and a 3ilipino haughtily ordered hi! to stand up and leave the plane(%espondent protested, e"plaining that he was issued a ,( (visa( /owever, /e was still constrained to go out of the plane( /ence, he filed a case against JAL airlines( ISSUE: Are co!!entaries on pu0lic officials and on !atters of pu0lic interests, privileged4 RULING: As e"plained in the case of Borjal v. Court of Appeals , to wit: )o reiterate, fair co!!entaries on !atters of pu0lic interest are privilegedand constitute a valid defense in an action for li0el or slander( )he doctrine of fair co!!ent !eans that while in general every discredita0lei!putation pu0licly !ade is dee!ed false, 0ecause every !an is presu!ed innocent until his guilt is 5udicially proved, nevertheless, when thediscredita0le i!putation is directed against a pu0lic person in his pu0lic capacity, it is not necessarily actiona0le( In order that such discredita0lei!putation to a pu0lic official !ay 0e actiona0le, it !ust either 0e a false allegation of fact or a co!!ent 0ased on a false supposition( If theco!!ent is an e"pression of opinion, 0ased on esta0lished facts, then it is i!!aterial that the opinion happens to 0e !ista+en, as long as it !ightreasona0ly 0e inferred fro! the facts(1ven though JAL is not a pu0lic official, the rule on privileged co!!entaries on !atters of pu0lic interest applies to it( )he privilege applies not only to pu0lic officials 0ut e"tends to a great variety of su05ects, and includes !atters of pu0lic concern, pu0lic !en, andcandidates for office( Considering that the pu0lished articles involve !atters

of pu0lic interest and that its e"pressed opinion is not !alicious 0ut 0ased on esta0lished facts, the i!putations against JAL are not actiona0le( )herefore, JAL !ay not clai! da!ages for the!( FERMIN S !E"!LEGR 1#7$4% (MARC& 28,2008)F ACTS: 6efore us is a petition for review on certiorari, under %ule 7& of the %ules of Court, of the Decision dated epte!0er 8, $99$ andthe %esolution of the Court of Appeals entitled :;eople of the ;hilippines v( Cristenelli ( 3er!in and 6ogs C( )ugas(: <n co!plaint of spouses Anna0elle %a!a =utierre> and 1duardo (1ddie) =utierre>, two ($) cri!inal infor!ations for li0el were filed against Cristinelli (3er!in and 6ogs C( )ugas 0efore the %egional )rial Court (%)C) of ?ue>on City, 6ranch $1@(the infor!ations read A )hat on or a0out the 17th day of June, 1**& in ?ue>on City, ;hilippines, the accused 31%-IB, pu0lisher, and 6<= C( ),=A ,1ditor.in.Chief of =ossip )a0loid,conspiring together, confederating with and !utually helping each other, pu0licly and acting with !alice,did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously print and circulate in the headline and lead story of the said =< I; )A6L<ID issueof June 17, 1**&( ISSUE: 2hat are the standards to 0e adopted on those in entertain!ent 0usiness, !edia and intrigue colu!ns4 RULING: 2e !ust however ta+e this opportunity to li+ewise re!ind !edia practitioners of the high ethical standards attached to andde!anded 0y their no0le profession( )he danger of an un0ridled irrational e"ercise of the right of free speech and press, that is, in utter conte!pt of the rights of others and in willful disregard of the cu!0rous responsi0ilities inherent in it, is the eventual self.destruction of theright and the regression of hu!an society into a verita0le /o00esian state of nature where life is short, nasty and 0rutish( )herefore, torecogni>e that there can 0e no a0solute :unrestraint: in speech is to truly co!prehend the Cuintessence of freedo! in the !ar+etplace of social thought and action, genuine freedo! 0eing that which is li!ned 0y the freedo! of others( It is in this sense that self.regulation asdistinguished fro! self. censorship 0eco!es the ideal !ean for, as -r( Justice 3ran+furter has warned, :D2Eithout " " " a lively sense of responsi0ility, a free press !ay readily 0eco!e a powerful instru!ent of in5ustice( Lest we 0e !isconstrued, this is not to di!inish nor constrict that space in which e"pression freely flourishes and operates( 3or we have always strongly !aintained, as we do now, that freedo!of e"pression is !anFs 0irthright A constitutionally protected and guaranteed, and that it has 0eco!e the singular role of the press to act as its:defensor fidei: in a de!ocratic society such as ours( 6ut it is also worth +eeping in !ind that the press is the servant, not the !aster, of theciti>enry, and its freedo! does not carry with it an unrestricted hunting license to prey on the ordinary citi>en(