EN BANC

[G.R. No. 135306. January 28, 2003]

MVRS PUBLIC!I"NS, INC., MRS C. LC"NS#, M#L C. GUJ
an$ GUS!IN" G. BIN%GS, JR., petitioners, vs. ISLMIC
&'() C"UNCIL "* !)% P)ILIPPIN%S, INC., B&UL+R)MN
R.!. LIN,G, IBR)IM *.P. RCILL, B&UL RS)I& &%
GU,MN, L+*R%& & SILV an$ IBR)IM B..
JUNI", respondents.
& % C I S I " N

I may utterly detest what you write, but I shall fight
to the death to make it possible for you to
continue writing it. - Voltaire
B%LL"SILL", J.-
VOLTAIRE'S PONTIFICAL VERSE bestirs once again the basic liberties to free
speech an free press ! liberties that belong as "ell# if not $ore# to those "ho %&estion#
"ho o not confor$# "ho iffer' For the &lti$ate goo "hich "e all stri(e to achie(e for
o&rsel(es an o&r posterit) can better be reache b) a free e*change of ieas# "here
the best test of tr&th is the po"er of the tho&ght to get itself accepte in the co$petition
of the free $ar+et ! not ,&st the ieas "e esire# b&t incl&ing those tho&ghts "e
espise'
-./
ISLA0IC 1A'2A3 CO4NCIL OF T3E P3ILIPPINES# INC'# a local feeration of
$ore than se(ent) 5678 0&sli$ religio&s organi9ations# an ini(i&al 0&sli$s
AB14LRA30AN R'T' LIN:A;# IBRA3I0 F'P' ARCILLA# AB14L RAS3I1 1E
;4:0AN# AL!FARE1 1A SILVA an IBRA3I0 B'A' <4NIO# file in the Regional Trial
Co&rt of 0anila a co$plaint for a$ages in their o"n behalf an as a class s&it in behalf
of the 0&sli$ $e$bers nation"ie against 0VRS P4BLICATIONS# INC'# 0ARS C'
LACONSA=# 0=LA C' A;4<A an A;4STINO ;' BINE;AS# <R'# arising fro$ an article
p&blishe in the . A&g&st .>>? iss&e of Bulgar# a ail) tabloi' The article reas@
"ALAM BA NINYO?
Na ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng
mga Muslim?
Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay !indi nila ito kailangang
kainin kahit na sila pa ay magutom at ma"alan ng ulam sa tu"ing sila ay kakain
#inaga"a nila itong $iyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tu"ing ara" ng kanilang
pangingilin lalung%lalo na sa ara" na tinata"ag nilang &'amadan("
The co$plaint allege that the libelo&s state$ent "as ins&lting an a$aging to the
0&sli$sA that these "ors all&ing to the pig as the ;o of the 0&sli$s "as not onl)
p&blishe o&t of sheer ignorance b&t "ith intent to h&rt the feelings# cast ins&lt an
isparage the 0&sli$s an Isla$# as a religion in this co&ntr)# in (iolation of la"# p&blic
polic)# goo $orals an h&$an relationsA that on acco&nt of these libelo&s
"ors Bulgar ins&lte not onl) the 0&sli$s in the Philippines b&t the entire 0&sli$
"orl# especiall) e(er) 0&sli$ ini(i&al in non!0&sli$ co&ntries'
0VRS P4BLICATIONS# INC'# an A;4STINO ;' BINE;AS# <R'# in their efense#
contene that the article i not $ention responents as the ob,ect of the article an
therefore "ere not entitle to a$agesA an# that the article "as $erel) an e*pression
of belief or opinion an "as p&blishe "itho&t $alice nor intention to ca&se a$age#
pre,&ice or in,&r) to 0&sli$s'
-?/
On B7 <&ne .>>C the trial co&rt is$isse the co$plaint holing that the plaintiffs
faile to establish their ca&se of action since the persons allegel) efa$e b) the
article "ere not specificall) ientifie !
It must be noted that the persons allegedly de)amed* the herein plainti))s* "ere not
identi)ied "ith spe+i)i+ity ,he sub-e+t arti+le "as dire+ted at the Muslims "ithout
mentioning or identi)ying the herein plainti))s . . . . It is thus apparent that the
alleged libelous arti+le re)ers to the larger +olle+ti/ity o) Muslims )or "hi+h the
readers o) the libel +ould not readily identi)y the personalities o) the persons
de)amed !en+e* it is di))i+ult )or an indi/idual Muslim member to pro/e that the
de)amatory remarks apply to him ,he e/iden+e presented in this +ase )ailed to
+on/in+e this +ourt that* indeed* the de)amatory remarks really applied to the herein
plainti))s
[3]
On ?6 A&g&st .>>D the Co&rt of Appeals re(erse the ecision of the trial co&rt' It
opine that it "as Eclear fro$ the isp&te article that the efa$ation "as irecte to all
aherents of the Isla$ic faith' It state that pigs "ere sacre an ioli9e as go b)
$e$bers of the 0&sli$ religion' This libelo&s i$p&tation &neniabl) applie to the
plaintiff!appellants "ho are 0&sli$s sharing the sa$e religio&s beliefs'E It ae that
the s&it for a$ages "as a Eclass s&itE an that ISLA0IC 1A'2A3 CO4NCIL OF T3E
P3ILIPPINES# INC''s religio&s stat&s as a 0&sli$ &$brella organi9ation ga(e it the
re%&isite personalit) to s&e an protect the interests of all 0&sli$s'
-F/
3ence# the instant petition for re(ie" assailing the finings of the appellate co&rt 5a8
on the e*istence of the ele$ents of libel# 5b8 the right of responents to instit&te the
class s&it# an# 5c8 the liabilit) of petitioners for $oral a$ages# e*e$plar) a$ages#
attorne)'s fees an costs of s&it'
1efa$ation# "hich incl&es libel an slaner# $eans the offense of in,&ring a
person's character# fa$e or rep&tation thro&gh false an $alicio&s state$ents'
-C/
It is that
"hich tens to in,&re rep&tation or to i$inish the estee$# respect# goo "ill or
confience in the plaintiff or to e*cite erogator) feelings or opinions abo&t the plaintiff'
-G/
It is the p&blication of an)thing "hich is in,&rio&s to the goo na$e or rep&tation of
another or tens to bring hi$ into isrep&te'
-6/
1efa$ation is an in(asion of a relational
interest since it in(ol(es the opinion "hich others in the co$$&nit) $a) ha(e# or ten to
ha(e# of the plaintiff'
-D/
It $&st be stresse that "ors "hich are $erel) ins&lting are not actionable as libel
or slaner per se# an $ere "ors of general ab&se ho"e(er opprobrio&s# ill!nat&re# or
(e*atio&s# "hether "ritten or spo+en# o not constit&te a basis for an action for
efa$ation in the absence of an allegation for special a$ages'
->/
The fact that the
lang&age is offensi(e to the plaintiff oes not $a+e it actionable b) itself'
-.7/
1eclarations $ae abo&t a large class of people cannot be interprete to a(ert to
an ientifie or ientifiable ini(i&al' Absent circ&$stances specificall) pointing or
all&ing to a partic&lar $e$ber of a class# no $e$ber of s&ch class has a right of
action
-../
"itho&t at all i$pairing the e%&all) e$aning right of free speech an
e*pression# as "ell as of the press# &ner the Bill of Rights'
-.?/
Th&s# in Newsweek, Inc.
v. Intermediate Appellate Court#
-.B/
"e is$isse a co$plaint for libel against Newsweek,
Inc., on the gro&n that pri(ate responents faile to state a ca&se of action since the)
$ae no allegation in the co$plaint that an)thing containe in the article co$plaine of
specificall) referre to an) of the$' Pri(ate responents# incorporate associations of
s&garcane planters in Negros Occiental clai$ing to ha(e D#C77 $e$bers an se(eral
ini(i&al $e$bers# file a class action s&it for a$ages in behalf of all s&garcane
planters in Negros Occiental' The co$plaint file in the Co&rt of First Instance of
Bacolo Cit) allege that Newsweek, Inc'# co$$itte libel against the$ b) the
p&blication of the article EIsland of FearE in its "ee+l) ne"s$aga9ine allegel) epicting
Negros Pro(ince as a place o$inate b) "ealth) lano"ners an s&gar planters "ho
not onl) e*ploite the i$po(erishe an &nerpai s&garcane "or+ers b&t also
br&tali9e an +ille the$ "ith i$p&nit)' Pri(ate responents allege that the article
sho"e a eliberate an $alicio&s &se of falsehoo# slante presentation anHor
$isrepresentation of facts intene to p&t the s&garcane planters in a ba light# e*pose
the$ to p&blic riic&le# iscreit an h&$iliation in the Philippines an abroa# an
$a+e the$ the ob,ects of hatre# conte$pt an hostilit) of their agric&lt&ral "or+ers an
of the p&blic in general' 2e ratiocinate !
. . . "here the de)amation is alleged to ha/e been dire+ted at a group or +lass* it is
essential that the statement must be so s"eeping or all%embra+ing as to apply to e/ery
indi/idual in that group or +lass* or su))i+iently spe+i)i+ so that ea+h indi/idual in the
+lass or group +an pro/e that the de)amatory statement spe+i)i+ally pointed to him* so
that he +an bring the a+tion separately* i) need be . . . . ,he +ase at bar is not a
+lass suit It is not a +ase "here one or more may sue )or the bene)it o) all* or "here
the representation o) +lass interest a))e+ted by the -udgment or de+ree is indispensable
to make ea+h member o) the +lass an a+tual party 0e ha/e here a +ase "here ea+h o)
the plainti))s has a separate and distin+t reputation in the +ommunity ,hey do not
ha/e a +ommon or general interest in the sub-e+t matter o) the +ontro/ersy
In the present case# there "as no fairl) ientifiable person "ho "as allegel)
in,&re b) the Bulgar article' Since the persons allegel) efa$e co&l not be
ientifiable# pri(ate responents ha(e no ini(i&al ca&ses of actionA hence# the) cannot
s&e for a class allegel) isparage' Pri(ate responents $&st ha(e a ca&se of action
in co$$on "ith the class to "hich the) belong to in orer for the case to prosper'
An ini(i&al 0&sli$ has a rep&tation that is personal# separate an istinct in the
co$$&nit)' Each 0&sli$# as part of the larger 0&sli$ co$$&nit) in the Philippines of
o(er fi(e 5C8 $illion people# belongs to a ifferent trae an professionA each has a
(ar)ing interest an a i(ergent political an religio&s (ie" !so$e $a) be conser(ati(e#
others liberal' A 0&sli$ $a) fin the article ishonorable# e(en blasphe$o&sA others
$a) fin it as an opport&nit) to strengthen their faith an e&cate the non!belie(ers an
the Einfiels'E There is no in,&r) to the rep&tation of the ini(i&al 0&sli$s "ho
constit&te this co$$&nit) that can gi(e rise to an action for gro&p libel' Each rep&tation
is personal in character to e(er) person' Together# the 0&sli$s o not ha(e a single
co$$on rep&tation that "ill gi(e the$ a co$$on or general interest in the s&b,ect
$atter of the contro(ers)'
In Arcand v. The vening Call !u"lishing Compan##
-.F/
the 4nite States Co&rt of
Appeals hel that one g&iing principle of gro&p libel is that defamation of a large group
does not give rise to a cause of action on the part of an individual unless it can "e
shown that he is the target of the defamator# matter'
The r&le on libel has been restricti(e' In an A$erican case#
-.C/
a person ha
allegel) co$$itte libel against all persons of the <e"ish religion' The Co&rt hel that
there co&l be no libel against an e*tensi(e co$$&nit) in co$$on la"' In an English
case# "here libel consiste of allegations of i$$oralit) in a Catholic n&nner)# the Co&rt
consiere that if the libel "ere on the "hole Ro$an Catholic Ch&rch generall)# then
the efenant $&st be absol(e'
-.G/
2ith regar to the largest sectors in societ)#
incl&ing religio&s gro&ps# it $a) be generall) concl&e that no cri$inal action at the
behest of the state# or ci(il action on behalf of the ini(i&al# "ill lie'
In another case# the plaintiffs clai$e that all 0&sli$s# n&$bering $ore than G77
$illion# "ere efa$e b) the airing of a national tele(ision broacast of a fil$ epicting
the p&blic e*ec&tion of a Sa&i Arabian princess acc&se of a&lter)# an alleging that
s&ch fil$ "as Eins&lting an efa$ator)E to the Isla$ic religion'
-.6/
The 4nite States
1istrict Co&rt of the Northern 1istrict of California concl&e that the plaintiffs' pra)er for
I?7 Billion in a$ages arising fro$ Ean international conspirac) to ins&lt# riic&le#
iscreit an ab&se follo"ers of Isla$ thro&gho&t the "orl# Arabs an the Jingo$ of
Sa&i ArabiaE borere on the Efri(olo&s#E r&ling that the plaintiffs ha faile to
e$onstrate an actionable clai$ for efa$ation' The California Co&rt stresse that the
ai$ of the la" on efa$ation "as to protect individualsA a gro&p $a) be s&fficientl)
large that a state$ent concerning it co&l not efa$e ini(i&al gro&p $e$bers'
-.D/
Philip 2ittenberg# in his boo+ E$angerous %ords& A 'uide to the (aw of
(i"el#E
-.>/
isc&sses the inappropriateness of an) action for tortio&s libel in(ol(ing large
gro&ps# an pro(ies a s&ccinct ill&stration@
,here are groupings "hi+h may be )inite enough so that a des+ription o) the body is a
des+ription o) the members !ere the problem is merely one o) e/aluation Is the
des+ription o) the member impli+it in the des+ription o) the body* or is there a
possibility that a des+ription o) the body may +onsist o) a /ariety o) persons* those
in+luded "ithin the +harge* and those e.+luded )rom it?
A general +harge that the la"yers in the +ity are shysters "ould ob/iously not be a
+harge that all o) the la"yers "ere shysters A +harge that the la"yers in a lo+al
point in a great +ity* su+h as ,imes 12uare in Ne" York 3ity* "ere shysters "ould
ob/iously not in+lude all o) the la"yers "ho pra+ti+ed in that distri+t4 but a statement
that all o) the la"yers "ho pra+ti+ed in a parti+ular building in that distri+t "ere
shysters "ould be a spe+i)i+ +harge* so that any la"yer ha/ing an o))i+e "ithin that
building +ould sue
If the gro&p is a (er) large one# then the allege libelo&s state$ent is consiere to
ha(e no application to an)one in partic&lar# since one $ight as "ell efa$e all
$an+in' Not onl) oes the gro&p as s&ch ha(e no actionA the plaintiff oes not
establish an) personal reference to hi$self'
-?7/
At present# $oern societal gro&ps are
both n&$ero&s an co$ple*' The sa$e principle follo"s "ith these gro&ps@ as the si9e
of these gro&ps increases# the chances for $e$bers of s&ch gro&ps to reco(er
a$ages on tortio&s libel beco$e el&si(e' This principle is sai to e$brace t"o 5?8
i$portant p&blic policies@ first# "here the gro&p referre to is large# the co&rts pres&$e
that no reasonable reaer "o&l ta+e the state$ents as so literall) appl)ing to each
ini(i&al $e$berA an second# the li$itation on liabilit) "o&l satisfactoril) safeg&ar
freeo$ of speech an e*pression# as "ell as of the press# effecting a so&n
co$pro$ise bet"een the conflicting f&na$ental interests in(ol(e in libel cases'
-?./
In the instant case# the 0&sli$ co$$&nit) is too (ast as to reail) ascertain "ho
a$ong the 0&sli$s "ere partic&larl) efa$e' The si9e of the gro&p reners the
reference as ineter$inate an generic as a si$ilar attac+ on Catholics# Protestants#
B&hists or 0or$ons "o&l o' The "or E0&sli$E is escripti(e of those "ho are
belie(ers of Isla$# a religion i(ie into (ar)ing sects# s&ch as the S&nnites# the
Shiites# the Jhari,ites# the S&fis an others base &pon political an theological
istinctions' E0&sli$E is a na$e "hich escribes onl) a general seg$ent of the
Philippine pop&lation# co$prising a heterogeneo&s bo) "hose constr&ction is not so
"ell efine as to rener it i$possible for an) representati(e ientification'
The Christian religion in the Philippines is li+e"ise i(ie into ifferent sects@
Catholic# Baptist# Episcopalian# Presb)terian# L&theran# an other gro&ps the essence
of "hich $a) lie in an inspire charlatan# "hose te$ple $a) be a corner ho&se in the
fringes of the co&ntr)sie' As "ith the Christian religion# so it is "ith other religions that
represent the nation's c&lt&rall) i(erse people an $inister to each one's spirit&al
nees' The 0&sli$ pop&lation $a) be i(ie into s$aller gro&ps "ith (ar)ing agena#
fro$ the pra)erf&l conser(ati(e to the passionatel) raical' These i(isions in the
0&sli$ pop&lation $a) still be too large an a$big&o&s to pro(ie a reasonable
inference to an) personalit) "ho can bring a case in an action for libel'
The foregoing are in essence the sa$e (ie" scholarl) e*presse b) 0r' <&stice
Re)nato S' P&no in the co&rse of the eliberations in this case' 2e e*tensi(el)
repro&ce here&ner his co$prehensi(e an penetrating isc&ssion on gro&p libel !
$e)amation is made up o) the t"in torts o) libel and slander 5 the one being* in
general* "ritten* "hile the other in general is oral In either )orm* de)amation is an
in/asion o) the interest in reputation and good name ,his is a 6relational interest7
sin+e it in/ol/es the opinion others in the +ommunity may ha/e* or tend to ha/e o) the
plainti))
,he la" o) de)amation prote+ts the interest in reputation 5 the interest in a+2uiring*
retaining and en-oying one(s reputation as good as one(s +hara+ter and +ondu+t
"arrant ,he mere )a+t that the plainti))(s )eelings and sensibilities ha/e been
o))ended is not enough to +reate a +ause o) a+tion )or de)amation $e)amation
re2uires that something be +ommuni+ated to a third person that may a))e+t the
opinion others may ha/e o) the plainti)) ,he unpri/ileged +ommuni+ation must be
sho"n o) a statement that "ould tend to hurt plainti))(s reputation* to impair
plainti))(s standing in the +ommunity
Although the gist o) an a+tion )or de)amation is an in-ury to reputation* the )o+us o) a
de)amation a+tion is upon the allegedly de)amatory statement itsel) and its
predi+table e))e+t upon third persons A statement is ordinarily +onsidered de)amatory
i) it 6tend8s9 to e.pose one to publi+ hatred* shame* oblo2uy* +ontumely* odium*
+ontempt* ridi+ule* a/ersion* ostra+ism* degradation or disgra+e:7 ,he
'estatement o) ,orts de)ines a de)amatory statement as one that 6tends to so harm
the reputation o) another as to lo"er him in the estimation o) the +ommunity or to
deter third persons )rom asso+iating or dealing "ith him7
3onse2uently as a prere2uisite to re+o/ery* it is ne+essary )or the plainti)) to pro/e as
part o) his prima )a+ie +ase that the de)endant ;<= published a statement that "as ;>=
de)amatory ;?= o) and +on+erning the plainti))
,he rule in libel is that the a+tion must be brought by the person against "hom the
de)amatory +harge has been made In the Ameri+an -urisdi+tion* no a+tion lies by a
third person )or damages su))ered by reason o) de)amation o) another person* e/en
though the plainti)) su))ers some in-ury there)rom @or re+o/ery in de)amation +ases*
it is ne+essary that the publi+ation be 6o) and +on+erning the plainti))7 A/en "hen a
publi+ation may be +learly de)amatory as to somebody* i) the "ords ha/e no personal
appli+ation to the plainti))* they are not a+tionable by him I) no one is identi)ied*
there +an be no libel be+ause no one(s reputation has been in-ured . . . .
In )ine* in order )or one to maintain an a+tion )or an alleged de)amatory statement* it
must appear that the plainti)) is the person "ith re)eren+e to "hom the statement "as
made ,his prin+iple is o) /ital importan+e in +ases "here a group or +lass is de)amed
sin+e* usually* the larger the +olle+ti/e* the more di))i+ult it is )or an indi/idual
member to sho" that he "as the person at "hom the de)amation "as dire+ted
I) the de)amatory statements "ere dire+ted at a small* restri+ted group o) persons*
they applied to any member o) the group* and an indi/idual member +ould maintain
an a+tion )or de)amation 0hen the de)amatory language "as used to"ard a small
group or +lass* in+luding e/ery member* it has been held that the de)amatory
language re)erred to ea+h member so that ea+h +ould maintain an a+tion ,his small
group or +lass may be a -ury* persons engaged in +ertain businesses* pro)essions or
employments* a restri+ted subdi/ision o) a parti+ular +lass* a so+iety* a )ootball team*
a )amily* small groups o) union o))i+ials* a board o) publi+ o))i+ers* or engineers o) a
parti+ular +ompany
In +ontrast* i) de)amatory "ords are used broadly in respe+t to a large +lass or group
o) persons* and there is nothing that points* or by proper +ollo2uium or innuendo +an
be made to apply* to a parti+ular member o) the +lass or group* no member has a
right o) a+tion )or libel or slander 0here the de)amatory matter had no spe+ial*
personal appli+ation and "as so general that no indi/idual damages +ould be
presumed* and "here the +lass re)erred to "as so numerous that great /e.ation and
oppression might gro" out o) the multipli+ity o) suits* no pri/ate a+tion +ould be
maintained ,his rule has been applied to de)amatory publi+ations +on+erning groups
or +lasses o) persons engaged in a parti+ular business* pro)ession or employment*
dire+ted at asso+iations or groups o) asso+iation o))i+ials* and to those dire+ted at
mis+ellaneous groups or +lasses o) persons
$istinguishing a small group%"hi+h i) de)amed entitles all its members to sue )rom a
large group 5 "hi+h i) de)amed entitles no one to sue 5 is not al"ays so simple 1ome
authorities ha/e noted that in +ases permitting re+o/ery* the group generally has
t"enty )i/e ;>B= or )e"er members !o"e/er* there is usually no arti+ulated limit on
siCe 1uits ha/e been permitted by members o) )airly large groups "hen some
distinguishing +hara+teristi+ o) the indi/idual or group in+reases the likelihood that
the statement +ould be interpreted to apply indi/idually @or e.ample* a single player
on the DE to FE man Oklahoma Gni/ersity )ootball team "as permitted to sue "hen a
"riter a++used the entire team o) taking amphetamines to 6hop up7 its per)orman+e4
the indi/idual "as a )ullba+k* ie* a signi)i+ant position on the team and had played
in all but t"o o) the team(s games
A prime +onsideration* there)ore* is the publi+ per+eption o) the siCe o) the group and
"hether a statement "ill be interpreted to re)er to e/ery member ,he more organiCed
and +ohesi/e a group* the easier it is to tar all its members "ith the same brush and
the more likely a +ourt "ill permit a suit )rom an indi/idual e/en i) the group in+ludes
more than t"enty )i/e ;>B= members At some point* ho"e/er* in+reasing siCe may be
seen to dilute the harm to indi/iduals and any resulting in-ury "ill )all beneath the
threshold )or a /iable la"suit
. . . . ,here are many other groupings o) men than those that are +ontained "ithin
the )oregoing group +lassi)i+ations ,here are all the religions o) the "orld* there are
all the politi+al and ideologi+al belie)s4 there are the many +olors o) the human ra+e
#roup de)amation has been a )ertile and dangerous "eapon o) atta+k on /arious
ra+ial* religious and politi+al minorities 1ome states* there)ore* ha/e passed statutes
to pre/ent +on+erted e))orts to harass minority groups in the Gnited 1tates by making
it a +rime to +ir+ulate insidious rumors against ra+ial and religious groups ,hus )ar*
any +i/il remedy )or su+h broadside de)amation has been la+king
,here ha/e been numerous attempts by indi/idual members to seek redress in the
+ourts )or libel on these groups* but /ery )e" ha/e su++eeded be+ause it )elt that the
groups are too large and poorly de)ined to support a )inding that the plainti)) "as
singled out )or personal atta+k . . . . ;+itations omitted=
O&r concl&sion therefore is that the state$ents p&blishe b) petitioners in the
instant case i not specificall) ientif) nor refer to an) partic&lar ini(i&als "ho "ere
p&rportel) the s&b,ect of the allege libelo&s p&blication' Responents can scarcel)
clai$ to ha(ing been single o&t for social cens&re pointel) res&lting in a$ages'
A contrar) (ie" is e*presse that "hat is in(ol(e in the present case is an
intentional tortio&s act ca&sing mental distress an not an action for libel' That opinion
in(o+es Chaplinsk# v. New )ampshire
-??/
"here the 4'S' S&pre$e Co&rt hel that "ors
heaping e*tre$e profanit)# intene $erel) to incite hostilit)# hatre or (iolence# ha(e
no social (al&e an o not en,o) constit&tional protectionA an Beauharnais v.
Illinois
-?B/
"here it "as also r&le that hate speech "hich enigrates a gro&p of persons
ientifie b) their religion# race or ethnic origin efa$es that gro&p an the la" $a)
(alil) prohibit s&ch speech on the sa$e gro&n as efa$ation of an ini(i&al'
2e o not agree to the contrar) (ie" artic&late in the i$$eiatel) preceeing
paragraph' Pri$aril)# an Ee$otional istressE tort action is personal in nat&re# i'e'# it is a
ci(il action file b) anindividual
-?F/
to ass&age the in,&ries to his e$otional tran%&ilit) &e
to personal attac+s on his character' It has no application in the instant case since no
partic&lar ini(i&al "as ientifie in the isp&te article of Bulgar' Also# the p&rporte
a$age ca&se b) the article# ass&$ing there "as an)# falls &ner the principle
of relational harm ! "hich incl&es har$ to social relationships in the co$$&nit) in the
for$ of efa$ationA as isting&ishe fro$ the principle of reactive harm ! "hich incl&es
in,&ries to ini(i&al e$otional tran%&ilit) in the for$ of an infliction of emotional
distress' In their co$plaint# responents clearl) asserte an allege har$ to the
staning of 0&sli$s in the co$$&nit)# especiall) to their acti(ities in propagating their
faith in 0etro 0anila an in other non!0&sli$ co$$&nities in the co&ntr)'
-?C/
It is th&s
be)on ca(il that the present case falls "ithin the application of the relational
harm principle of tort actions for efa$ation# rather than thereactive harm principle on
"hich the concept of emotional distress properl) belongs'
0oreo(er# &ner the *econd Restatement of the (aw# to reco(er for the intentional
infliction of e$otional istress the plaintiff $&st sho" that@ 5a8 The con&ct of the
efenant "as intentional or in rec+less isregar of the plaintiffA 5b8 The con&ct "as
e*tre$e an o&trageo&sA 5c8 There "as a ca&sal connection bet"een the efenant's
con&ct an the plaintiff's $ental istressA an# 58 The plaintiff's $ental istress "as
e*tre$e an se(ere'
-?G/
EE*tre$e an o&trageo&s con&ctE $eans con&ct that is so o&trageo&s in
character# an so e*tre$e in egree# as to go be)on all possible bo&ns of ecenc)#
an to be regare as atrocio&s# an &tterl) intolerable in ci(ili9e societ)' The
efenant's actions $&st ha(e been so terrif)ing as nat&rall) to h&$iliate# e$barrass or
frighten the plaintiff'
-?6/
;enerall)# con&ct "ill be fo&n to be actionable "here the
recitation of the facts to an a(erage $e$ber of the co$$&nit) "o&l aro&se his
resent$ent against the actor# an lea hi$ or her to e*clai$# EO&trageo&sKE as his or
her reaction'
-?D/
EE$otional istressE $eans an) highl) &npleasant $ental reaction s&ch as e*tre$e
grief# sha$e# h&$iliation# e$barrass$ent# anger# isappoint$ent# "orr)# na&sea#
$ental s&ffering an ang&ish# shoc+# fright# horror# an chagrin'
-?>/
ESe(ere e$otional
istress#E in so$e ,&risictions# refers to an) t)pe of se(ere an isabling e$otional or
$ental conition "hich $a) be generall) recogni9e an iagnose b) professionals
traine to o so# incl&ing posttra&$atic stress isorer# ne&rosis# ps)chosis# chronic
epression# or phobia'
-B7/
The plaintiff is re%&ire to sho"# a$ong other things# that he or
she has s&ffere e$otional istress so se(ere that no reasonable person co&l be
e*pecte to en&re itA severit# of the distress is an element of the cause of action, not
simpl# a matter of damages'
-B./
An) part) see+ing reco(er) for $ental ang&ish $&st pro(e $ore than $ere "orr)#
an*iet)# (e*ation# e$barrass$ent# or anger' Liabilit) oes not arise fro$ $ere ins&lts#
inignities# threats# anno)ances# pett) e*pressions# or other tri(ialities' In eter$ining
"hether the tort of o&trage ha been co$$itte# a plaintiff is necessaril) e*pecte an
re%&ire to be harene to a certain a$o&nt of criticis$# ro&gh lang&age# an to
occasional acts an "ors that are efinitel) inconsierate an &n+inA the $ere fact
that the actor +no"s that the other "ill regar the con&ct as ins&lting# or "ill ha(e his
feelings h&rt# is not eno&gh'
-B?/
)ustler +aga,ine v. Falwell
-BB/
ill&strates the test case of a ci(il action for a$ages
on intentional infliction of e$otional istress' A paro) appeare in 3&stler $aga9ine
feat&ring the A$erican f&na$entalist preacher an e(angelist Re(eren <err) Fal"ell
epicting hi$ in an inebriate state ha(ing an incest&o&s se*&al liaison "ith his $other
in an o&tho&se' Fal"ell s&e 3&stler an its p&blisher Larr) Fl)nt for a$ages' The
4nite States 1istrict Co&rt for the 2estern 1istrict of Virginia r&le that the paro) "as
not libelo&s# beca&se no reasonable reaer "o&l ha(e &nerstoo it as a fact&al
assertion that Fal"ell engage in the act escribe' The ,&r)# ho"e(er# a"are
I?77#777 in a$ages on a separate co&nt of Eintentional infliction of e$otional
istress#E a ca&se of action that i not re%&ire a false state$ent of fact to be
$ae' The 4nite States S&pre$e Co&rt in a &nani$o&s ecision o(ert&rne the ,&r)
(erict of the Virginia Co&rt an hel that Re(eren Fal"ell $a) not reco(er for
intentional infliction of e$otional istress' It "as arg&e that the $aterial $ight be
ee$e o&trageo&s an $a) ha(e been intene to ca&se se(ere e$otional istress#
b&t these circ&$stances "ere not s&fficient to o(erco$e the free speech rights
g&arantee &ner the First A$en$ent of the 4nite States Constit&tion' Si$pl)
state# an intentional tort ca&sing e$otional istress $&st necessaril) gi(e "a) to the
f&na$ental right to free speech'
It $&st be obser(e that altho&gh Fal"ell "as regare b) the 4'S' 3igh Co&rt as a
Ep&blic fig&re#E he "as an individual particularl# singled out or identified in the paro)
appearing on 3&stler $aga9ine' Also# the e$otional istress allegel) s&ffere b)
Re(eren Fal"ell in(ol(e a reacti(e interest ! an e$otional response to the paro)
"hich s&pposel) in,&re his ps)chological "ell!being'
Veril)# o&r position is clear that the con&ct of petitioners "as not e*tre$e or
o&trageo&s' Neither "as the e$otional istress allegel) s&ffere b) responents so
se(ere that no reasonable person co&l be e*pecte to en&re it' There is no e(ience
on recor that points to that res&lt'
Professor 2illia$ Prosser# (ie"s tort actions on intentional infliction of e$otional
istress in this $anner
-BF/
!
,here is /irtually unanimous agreement that su+h ordinary de)endants are not liable
)or mere insult* indignity* annoyan+e* or e/en threats* "here the +ase is la+king in
other +ir+umstan+es o) aggra/ation ,he reasons are not )ar to seek Our manners*
and "ith them our la"* ha/e not yet progressed to the point "here "e are able to
a))ord a remedy in the )orm o) tort damages )or all intended mental disturban+e
Liability o) +ourse +annot be e.tended to e/ery tri/ial indignity . . . . ,he plainti))
must ne+essarily be e.pe+ted and re2uired to be hardened to a +ertain amount o)
rough language* and to a+ts that are de)initely in+onsiderate and unkind . . . The
plaintiff cannot recover merely because of hurt feelings.
Professor Cal(ert 0agr&er reinforces Prosser "ith this s&ccinct obser(ation# vi,@
-BC/
,here is no o++asion )or the la" to inter/ene in e/ery +ase "here someone(s )eelings
are hurt ,here must still be )reedom to e.press an un)lattering opinion* and some
sa)ety /al/e must be le)t through "hi+h iras+ible tempers may blo" o)) relati/ely
harmless steam
Th&s# it is e(ient that e(en A$erican co&rts are rel&ctant to aopt a r&le of
reco(er) for e$otional har$ that "o&l Eopen &p a "ie (ista of litigation in the fiel of
ba $anners#E an area in "hich a Eto&ghening of the $ental hieE "as tho&ght to be a
$ore appropriate re$e)'
-BG/
Perhaps of greater concern "ere the %&estions of
ca&sation# proof# an the abilit) to acc&ratel) assess a$ages for e$otional har$# each
of "hich contin&es to concern co&rts toa)'
-B6/
In this connection# the octrines in Chaplinsk# an Beauharnais ha largel) been
s&persee b) s&bse%&ent First A$en$ent octrines' Bac+ in si$pler ti$es in the
histor) of free e*pression the S&pre$e Co&rt appeare to espo&se a theor)# +no"n as
the Two-Class Theor## that treate certain t)pes of e*pression as taboo for$s of
speech# beneath the ignit) of the First A$en$ent' The $ost celebrate state$ent of
this (ie" "as e*presse in Chaplinsk#@
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention
and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any onstitutional
problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the
insulting or !fighting" words # those which by their very utterance inflict in$ury or
tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such
utterances are no essential part of any e%position of ideas, and are of such slight social
value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly
outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Toa)# ho"e(er# the theor) is no longer (iableA $oern First A$en$ent principles
ha(e passe it b)' ./r01an 1our23 no 4on5/r a11/62 27/ 80/9 27a2 36//17 .ay :/
6ro31r0:/$ ./r/4y :/1au3/ 02 03 ;4/9$,; ;6ro<an/,; ;0n3u420n5; or o27/r903/ 8u45ar
or o<</n308/'
-BD/
Cohen v. California
-B>/
is ill&strati(e@ Pa&l Robert Cohen "ore a ,ac+et
bearing the "ors EF&c+ the 1raftE in a Los Angeles co&rtho&se in April .>GD# "hich
ca&se his e(ent&al arrest' Cohen "as con(icte for (iolating a California stat&te
prohibiting an) person fro$ Eist&rb-ing/ the peace * * * b) offensi(e con&ct'E The
4'S' S&pre$e Co&rt concee that Cohen's e*pleti(e containe in his ,ac+et "as
E(&lgar#E b&t it concl&e that his speech "as nonetheless protecte b) the right to free
speech' It "as neither consiere an Eincite$entE to illegal action nor Eobscenit)'E It i
not constit&te ins&lting or EfightingE "ors for it ha not been irecte at a person "ho
"as li+el) to retaliate or at so$eone "ho co&l not a(oi the $essage' In other "ors#
no one "as present in the Los Angeles co&rtho&se "ho "o&l ha(e regare Cohen's
speech as a irect personal ins&lt# nor "as there an) anger of reacti(e (iolence
against hi$'
No specific individual was targeted in the allegedl# defamator# words printed on
Cohen.s /acket' The con(iction co&l onl) be ,&stifie b) CaliforniaLs esire to e*ercise
the broa po"er in preser(ing the cleanliness of isco&rse in the p&blic sphere# "hich
the 4'S' S&pre$e Co&rt ref&se to grant to the State# holing that no ob,ecti(e
istinctions can be $ae bet"een (&lgar an non(&lgar speech# an that the e$oti(e
ele$ents of speech are ,&st as essential in the e*ercise of this right as the p&rel)
cogniti(e' As 0r' <&stice 3arlan so elo%&entl) "rote@ E-O/ne $anLs (&lgarit) is another
$anLs l)ric * * * "ors are often chosen as $&ch for their e$oti(e as their cogniti(e
force'E
-F7/
2ith Cohen# the 4'S' S&pre$e Co&rt finall) lai the constit&tional fo&nation
for ,&icial protection of pro(ocati(e an potentiall) offensi(e speech'
Si$ilarl), 40:/4ou3 36//17 03 no 4on5/r ou230$/ 27/ *0r32 ./n$./n2
6ro2/120on. "n4y on/ 3.a44 60/1/ o< 27/ Two-Class Theory 0n Chaplinsky 3ur808/3
+ U.S. 1our23 1on20nu/ 2o 2r/a2 ;o:31/n/; 36//17 a3 no2 90270n 27/ 6ro2/120on o<
27/ *0r32 ./n$./n2 a2 a44. (027 r/36/12 2o 27/ ;<05720n5 9or$3; $o12r0n/, 9704/ 02
r/.a0n3 a408/ 02 9a3 .o$0<0/$ :y 27/ 1urr/n2 r05orou3 14/ar an$ 6r/3/n2 $an5/r
2/32.
-F./
Th&s# in Cohen the 4'S' S&pre$e Co&rt in appl)ing the test hel that there "as
no sho"ing that Cohen's ,ac+et bearing the "ors EF&c+ the 1raftE ha threatene to
pro(o+e i$$inent (iolenceA an that protecting the sensibilities of onloo+ers "as not
s&fficientl) co$pelling interest to restrain Cohen's speech'
Beauharnais# "hich closel) follo"e the Chaplinsk# octrine# s&ffere the sa$e fate
as Chaplinsk#' Inee# "hen Beauharnais "as ecie in .>C?# the Two-Class
Theor# "as still flo&rishing' 2hile conceel) the 4'S' 3igh Trib&nal i not for$all)
abanon Beauharnais# the se$inal shifts in 4'S' constit&tional ,&rispr&ence
s&bstantiall) &nerc&t Beauharnais an serio&sl) &ner$ine "hat is left of its (italit)
as a preceent' A$ong the cases that ealt a cr&shing i$pact on Beauharnais an
renere it al$ost certainl) a ea letter case la" areBranden"urg v. 0hio,
-F?/
an#
again# Cohen v. California'
-FB/
These ecisions recogni9e a $&ch narro"er set of
per$issible gro&ns for restricting speech than i Beauharnais'
-FF/
In Branden"urg# appellant "ho "as a leaer of the J& Jl&* Jlan "as con(icte
&ner the Ohio Cri$inal S)nicalis$ Stat&te for a(ocating the necessit)# &t) an
propriet) of cri$e# sabotage# (iolence# or &nla"f&l $ethos of terroris$ as a $eans of
acco$plishing in&strial or political refor$sA an for (ol&ntaril) asse$bling "ith a gro&p
for$e to teach or a(ocate the octrines of cri$inal s)nicalis$' Appellant challenge
the stat&te an "as s&staine b) the 4'S' S&pre$e Co&rt# holing that the a(ocac) of
illegal action beco$es p&nishable onl# if such advocac# is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likel# to incite or produce such action'
-FC/
E*cept in &n&s&al instances# Branden"urg protects the a(ocac) of la"lessness as
long as s&ch speech is not translate into action'
The i$portance of the Branden"urg r&ling cannot be o(ere$phasi9e' Prof' S$olla
affir$e that ;Brandenburg .u32 :/ un$/r32oo$ a3 o8/rru40n5 Beauharnais an$
/40.0na20n5 27/ 6o330:0402y o< 2r/a20n5 5rou6 40:/4 un$/r 27/ 3a./ *0r32 ./n$./n2
32an$ar$3 a3 0n$080$ua4 40:/4.E
-FG/
It $a) "ell be consiere as one of the l)nchpins of
the $oern octrine of free speech# "hich see+s to gi(e special protection to politicall)
rele(ant speech'
In an) case# responents' lac+ of ca&se of action cannot be c&re b) the filing of a
class s&it' As correctl) pointe o&t b) 0r' <&stice <ose C' Vit&g &ring the
eliberations# Ean ele$ent of a class s&it is the ae%&ac) of representation' In
eter$ining the %&estion of fair an ae%&ate representation of $e$bers of a class# the
co&rt $&st consier 5a8 "hether the interest of the na$e part) is coe*tensi(e "ith the
interest of the other $e$bers of the classA 5b8 the proportion of those $ae parties as it
so bears to the total $e$bership of the classA an# 5c8 an) other factor bearing on the
abilit) of the na$e part) to spea+ for the rest of the class'
-F6/
The r&les re%&ire that co&rts $&st $a+e s&re that the persons inter(ening sho&l be
s&fficientl) n&$ero&s to f&ll) protect the interests of all concerne' In the present
contro(ers)# Isla$ic 1aL"ah Co&ncil of the Philippines# Inc'# see+s in effect to assert the
interests not onl) of the 0&sli$s in the Philippines b&t of the "hole 0&sli$ "orl as
"ell' Pri(ate responents ob(io&sl) lac+ the s&fficienc) of n&$bers to represent s&ch a
global gro&pA neither ha(e the) been able to e$onstrate the ientit) of their interests
"ith those the) see+ to represent' 4nless it can be sho"n that there can be a safe
g&arant) that those absent "ill be ae%&atel) represente b) those present# a class
s&it# gi(en its $agnit&e in this instance# "o&l be &na(ailing'E
-FD/
Li+e"ise on the $atter of a$ages# "e agree that E$oral a$ages $a) be
reco(ere onl) if the plaintiff is able to satisfactoril) pro(e the e*istence of the fact&al
basis for the a$ages an its ca&sal connection "ith the acts co$plaine of#
-F>/
an so it
$&st be# as $oral a$ages altho&gh incapable of pec&niar) esti$ation are esigne
not to i$pose a penalt) b&t to co$pensate for in,&r) s&staine an act&al a$ages
s&ffere'
-C7/
E*e$plar) a$ages# on the other han# $a) onl) be a"are if clai$ant is
able to establish his right to $oral# te$perate# li%&iate or co$pensator) a$ages'
-C./
4nfort&natel)# neither of the re%&ire$ents to s&stain an a"ar for either of these
a$ages "o&l appear to ha(e been ae%&atel) establishe b) responents'E
In a pl&ralistic societ) li+e the Philippines "here $isinfor$ation abo&t another
ini(i&al's religion is as co$$onplace as self!appointe critics of go(ern$ent# it "o&l
be $ore appropriate to respect the fair criticis$ of religio&s principles# incl&ing those
"hich $a) be o&trageo&sl) appalling# i$$ensel) erroneo&s# or those co&che as fairl)
infor$ati(e co$$ents' The greater anger in o&r societ) is the possibilit) that it $a)
enco&rage the fre%&enc) of s&its a$ong religio&s f&na$entalists# "hether Christian#
0&sli$# 3in&# B&hist# <e"ish# or others' This "o&l &nnecessaril) $a+e the ci(il
co&rts a battlegro&n to assert their spirit&al ieas# an a(ance their respecti(e
religio&s agena'
It nee not be stresse that this Co&rt has no po"er to eter$ine "hich is proper
religio&s con&ct or beliefA neither oes it ha(e the a&thorit) to r&le on the $erits of one
religion o(er another# nor eclare "hich belief to &phol or cast as&ner# for the (aliit)
of religio&s beliefs or (al&es are o&tsie the sphere of the ,&iciar)' S&ch $atters are
better left for the religio&s a&thorities to aress "hat is rightf&ll) "ithin their octrine
an real$ of infl&ence' Co&rts $&st be (ie"point!ne&tral "hen it co$es to religio&s
$atters if onl) to affir$ the ne&tralit) principle of free speech rights &ner $oern
,&rispr&ence "here E-a/ll ieas are treate e%&al in the e)es of the First A$en$ent !
e(en those ieas that are &ni(ersall) cone$ne an r&n co&nter to constit&tional
principles'E
-C?/
4ner the right to free speech# Ethere is no s&ch thing as a false
iea' 3o"e(er pernicio&s an opinion $a) see$# "e epen for its correction not on the
conscience of ,&ges an ,&ries b&t on the co$petition of other
ieas'E
-CB/
1en)ing certiorari an affir$ing the appellate co&rt ecision "o&l s&rel)
create a chilling effect on the constit&tional g&arantees of freeo$ of speech# of
e*pression# an of the press'
23EREFORE# the petition is ;RANTE1' The assaile 1ecision of the Co&rt of
Appeals ate ?6 A&g&st .>>D is REVERSE1 an SET ASI1E# an the 1ecision of the
RTC!Br' F# 0anila# is$issing the co$plaint for lac+ of $erit# is REINSTATE1 an
AFFIR0E1' No prono&nce$ent as to costs'
S" "R&%R%&.
$avide, 1r., C.1., !uno, 2uisum"ing, 3nares-*antiago, *andoval-'utierre,,
Corona, an Calle/o, *r., 11., conc&r.
4itug, 1., see conc&rring opinion.
+endo,a, 1., in the res&lt.
Carpio, an Austria-+artine,, 11., see issenting opinion'
!angani"an, an Carpio-+orales, 11., ,oins the issent of <' Carpio.
A,cuna, 1., ,oins the issent of <&stice A&stria!0artine9'
-./
Cf' 3ol$es# <'# issenting in Abra$s (' 4nite States# ?C7 4'S' GB7'
-?/
Petitioners 0ars C' Laconsa) an 0)la C' Ag&,a faile to file their Ans"er an "ere eclare in efa&lt'
-B/
1ecision penne b) <&ge Vetino E' Re)es# RTC!Br' F# 0anila# Ci(il Case No' >?!G?FF.# EIsla$ic
1a'"ah Co&ncil of the Philippines# Inc' (' 0VRS P&blications# Inc'E
-F/
1ecision penne b) <&stice Teooro P' Regino# conc&rre in b) <&stices M&irino 1' Aba Santos# <r'#
an Conrao 0' Vas%&e9# <r'
-C/
Blac+Ls La" 1ictionar) 5Fth e' .>C.8# C7C'
-G/
2ors an Phrases# E1efa$ation#N citing Local .C of Inepenent 2or+ers of Noble Co&nt)# Inc' ('
International Broth' of Elec' 2or+ers# 1'C'# In'# ?6B F' S&pp' B.B# B?7'
-6/
Id'# citing 2hitb) v' Associates 1isco&nt Corp'# ?76 N'E' ? FD?# FDF# C>. Ill' App' ? BB6'
-D/
Prosser an Jeeton on Torts# 5Cth e' .>DF8'
->/
C7 A$' <&r' ?# ELibel an Slaner#E 67C 5.>>C8'
-.7/
Ibi'
-../
C7 A$ <&r ?# OLibel an Slaner#N G6F 5.>>C8'
-.?/
Art' III# Sec' F# .>D6 Constit&tion'
-.B/
;'R' No' GBCC># B7 0a) .>DG# .F? SCRA .6.# .6G!.66'
-.F/
CG6 F' ? ..GB# ..GF 5.>668'
-.C/
P' 2ittenberg# E1angero&s 2ors@ A ;&ie to the La" of Libel#E ??G!??6# citing People v' E$onson#
.GD N'=' 0isc' .F.'
-.G/
Id'# ??6# citing Re* v' ;athercole# ? Le"in ?B6'
-.6/
Jhali Ab&llah Tari% Al 0anso&r Faissal Fah Al Talal v' Fanning# Ci(' No' C D7!.DG> RPA# ?C
Septe$ber .>D7# C7G F'S&pp' .DG'
-.D/
Id'# .D6'
-.>/
I"id'
-?7/
See note D# 6G6!6GD'
-?./
C7 A$ <&r ?# G6C 5.>>C8'
-??/
B.C 4'S' CGD 5.>F?8'
-?B/
BFB 4'S' ?C7 5.>C?8'
-?F/
Not a gro&p# &nless the attac+ is irecte against ientifiable ini(i&als "ithin the gro&p'
-?C/
Rollo# CC'
-?G/
See SECON1 RESTATE0ENT OF T3E LA2# TORTS ?1 P FG'
P FG' O&trageo&s Con&ct Ca&sing Se(ere E$otional 1istress
5.8 One "ho b) e*tre$e an o&trageo&s con&ct intentionall) * * * ca&ses se(ere e$otional istress to
another is s&b,ect to liabilit) for s&ch e$otional istress# an if boil) har$ to the other res&lts
fro$ it# for s&ch boil) har$' * * *
-?6/
See BD A$' <&r' ? P .C citing cases' See also 1' ;i(elber# The Right to 0ini$&$ Social 1ecenc)
an the Li$its of E(enhaneness@ Intentional Infliction of E$otional 1istress b) O&trageo&s
Con&ct# D? Col' L' Re(' F? 5.>D?8'
-?D/
I"id'
-?>/
I"id'
-B7/
I"id'
-B./
I"id'
-B?/
See BD A$' <&r ? P 6 citing cases'
-BB/
FDC 4'S' FG 5.>DD8' 0r' <&stice Anthon) Jenne) i not ta+e part'
-BF/
See note D# P .?# p' C> citing 0agr&er# 0ental an E$otional 1ist&rbance in the La" of Torts# F> 3ar('
L' Re(' .7BB# .7BC' See also SECON1 RESTATE0ENT OF T3E LA2# TORTS ?1 P FG'
-BC/
F> 3ar(' L' Re(' .7CB' See also SECON1 RESTATE0ENT OF T3E LA2# TORTS ?1 P FG citing
0agr&er'
-BG/
S' Olsen# 2hite v' 0onsanto@ Lo&isiana Aopts the Restate$ent Approach to Intentional Infliction of
E$otional 1istress# GG T&lane L' Re(' ?7>G 5.>>?8 citing 0agr&er'
-B6/
I"id' citing BD A$' <&r' ? PP D!.?'
-BD/
S$olla# Free Speech in an Open Societ)# .>>B E'# at pp' .G7!.G?'
-B>/
F7B 4'S' .C 5.>6.8'
-F7/
Id' at ?C!?G'
-F./
See note BD'
-F?/
B>C 4'S' FFF 5.>G>8'
-FB/
F7B 4'S' .C 5.>6.8'
-FF/
See 3ar(ar La" Re(ie"# Vol' .7.@ GD? .>DD# at p' GDF!GD6'
-FC/
I"id' at FF6'
-FG/
See note BD at p' .GC'
-F6/
C> A$ <&r ?# FCG 5.>668'
-FD/
Citing In&strial ;enerating Co' v' <en+ins F.7 S2 ? GCDA Los Angeles Co&nt) 2inans# .7> P GF7A
2eberpals (' <enn)# .BB NE G?'
-F>/
Art' ??.6# Ne" Ci(il Coe'
-C7/
Si$e* International# Inc' v' Co&rt of Appeals# ;'R' No' DD7.B# .> 0arch .>>7# .DB SCRA BG7'
-C./
See Art' ??BF# Ne" Ci(il Coe'
-C?/
See note BD at p' FG'
-CB/
Id'# citing ;ert9 v' Robert 2elch# Inc'# F.D 4'S' B?B# BB>!BF7 5.>6F8'