POLICARPIO vs.

MANILA TIMES

DOCTRINE: Rectification or clarification does not wipe out the responsibilities arising from the
publication of the first article, although, it may and should mitigate.

FACTS:

Policarpio was executive secretary of UNESCO Nat’l Commission. As such, she had filed charges
against Herminia Reyes, one of her subordinates in the Commission, & caused the latter to be
separated from the service. Reyes, in turn, filed counter-charges which were referred for
investigation. Pending completion, Reyes filed a complaint against Policarpio for alleged
malversation of public funds & another complaint for estafa thru falsification of public documents.

Policarpio filed a libel suit to Manila Times Publishing Co. for publishing two defamatory, libelous
and false articles/news items in Saturday Mirror of August 11, 1956 and in the Daily Mirror of
August 13, 1956.

Saturday Mirror (Aug 11, 1956):

“WOMAN OFFICIAL SUED
PCAC RAPS L. POLICARPIO ON FRAUDS
Unesco Official Head Accused on Supplies, Funds Use by Colleague”

Daily Mirror (Aug 13, 1956):

“PALACE OPENS INVESTIGATION OF RAPS AGAINST POLICARPIO
Alba Probes Administrative Phase of Fraud Charges Against Unesco Woman Official;
Fiscal Sets Prelim Quiz of Criminal Suit on Aug 22”

The articles contain news on Reyes’ charges against Policarpio for having malversed public
property and of having fraudulently sought reimbursement of supposed official expenses. It was
said that Policarpio used several sheets of government stencils for her private and personal use.
The other charge refers to the supposed reimbursements she had made for a trip to Quezon and

Pangasinan. Reyes’ complaint alleged that Policarpio had asked for refund of expenses for use of
her car when she had actually made the trip aboard an army plane. Policarpio was said to be
absent from the Bayambang conference for which she also sought a refund of expenses.

CFI dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not proven that defendants had
acted maliciously in publishing the articles, although portions thereof were inaccurate or false.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of having published libelous/defamatory articles

HELD:
Prior to Aug 11, Col. Alba had already taken the testimony of witnesses; hence, defendants could
have ascertained the “details” had they wanted to. The number of stencil sheets used was
actually mentioned in the Aug 13 article.

Moreover, the penalty for estafa/embezzlement depends partly upon the amount of the damage
caused to the offended party. Hence, the amount or value of the property embezzled is material
to said offense.

It is obvious that the filing of criminal complaints by another agency of the Government, like the
PCAC, particularly after an investigation conducted by the same, imparts the ideal that the
probability of guilt is greater than when the complaints are filed by a private individual, especially
when the latter is a former subordinate of the alleged offender, who was responsible for the
dismissal of the complainant from her employment.

Newspapers must enjoy a certain degrees of discretion in determining the manner in which a
given event should be presented to the public, and the importance to be attached thereto, as a
news item, and that its presentation in a sensational manner is not per se illegal. Newspapers
may publish news items relative to judicial, legislative or other official proceedings, which are not
of confidential nature, because the public is entitled to know the truth with respect to such
proceedings. But, to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must be
not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without any comments or
remarks.

Art. 354, RPC provides:

“Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be true, if no good intention
& justifiable motive for making it is shown, except, “A fair and true report, made in good faith,
w/o any comments or remarks….”

In the case at bar, aside from containing information derogatory to the plaintiff, the Aug 11 article
presented her in a worse predicament than that in which she, in fact was. Said article was not a
fair and true report of the proceedings therein alluded to. What is more, its sub-title “PCAC raps
Policarpio on fraud” is a comment or remark, besides being false. Accordingly, the defamatory
imputations contained in said article are “presumed to be malicious”

In falsely stating that the complaints were filed by PCAC, either defendants knew the truth or
they did not. If they did, then the publication would actually be malicious. I f they did not, or if
they acted under a misapprehension of the facts, they were guilty of negligence in making said
statement.

We note that the Aug 13 article rectified a major inaccuracy in the 1st article, by stating that
neither Col. Alba nor the PCAC had filed the complaints. It likewise indicated the number of stencil
sheets involved. But, this rectification or clarification does not wipe out the responsibility arising
from the publication of the Aug 11 article, although it should mitigate it.