Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CASE DIGEST CHRISTINA FERMIN, petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, respondents 28 March 2008 Issue: Whether or not Cristy Fermin had actual knowledge and participation is guilty of libel? required, since Fermin has been specifically identified as author, editor, or proprietor or printer/publisher of the publication but also the president and chairperson. Thus, petitioners criminal guilt should be affirmed, The elements of libel were present.
(converting money for personal use), of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law (evading prosecution in America) and of being a wastrel
Facts of the Case: Cristy Fermin is the publisher and Bogs Tugas is the editor-in-chief of Gossip Tabloid The June 14, 1995 headline and lead story of the tabloid says that it is improbable for Annabelle Rama to go to the US should it be true that she is evading her conviction in an estafa case here in the Philippines for she and husband Eddie have more problems/cases to confront there. This was said to be due to their, especially Annabelle's, using fellow Filipinos money, failure to remit proceeds to the manufacturing company of the cookware they were selling and not being on good terms with the latter. Annabelle Rama and Eddie Gutierrez filed libel cases against Fermin and Tugas before RTC of QC, Br. 218. RTC: Fermin and Tugas found guilty of libel. CA: Tugas was acquitted on account of non-participation but Fermin's conviction was affirmed. Fermin's motion for reconsideration was denied. She argues that she had no knowledge and participation in the publication of the article, that the article is not libelous and is covered by the freedom of the press.
o o o
Attribution made publicly. Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide circulation. The victims were identified and identifiable. The article reeks of malice, as it tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants. Malice in law - the article was malicious in itself; the imputations were false. Malice in fact - there was motive to talk ill against complainants during the electoral campaign as Fermin is a close friend of Eddie's opponent in the Congressional race
While complainants are considered public figures for being personalities in the entertainment business, journalists do not have the unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments, whether in broadcast media or in print, about their personal lives.
Ruling of the Case: HELD: YES. Proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication is not G.R. No. L-6465
Page 1 of 18
2. After answer and trial the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered
a judgment dismissing the complaint from appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter promulgated on January 19, 1953, affirmed court of origin; and the case is now before us on certiorari filed by the petitioner. which the petitioner Court, in its decision the judgment of the on petition for review
Page 2 of 18
(a) In Borjal vs. Ct. of Appeals, (301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999) it was held that the enumeration in Article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications because fair comments on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander (b). They refer to events, developments, or matters in which the public as a whole has a legitimate interest.
Truth And Good Motives or Justifiable Ends. A. It is not enough that what was publicized about another is true. The accused must also prove good motives or intentions and justifiable ends, in order to disprove malice. B. This defense is available only if: (a) What is imputed to another is a crime regardless if the victim is a private or public person or (ii) if the victim is a public officer regardless of whether a crime is imputed, so long as it relates to the discharge of their official duties
G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 LUMEN POLICARPIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA TIMES PUB. CO., INC., CONSTANTE C. ROLDAN, MANUEL V. VILLA-REAL, E. AGUILAR CRUZ and CONSORCIO BORJE, defendant-appellees.
Page 3 of 18
FACTS:
Policarpio was executive secretary of UNESCO Natl 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.
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.
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
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.
The headline of the Aug 11 article was given prominence with a 6column (about 11 inches) banner headline of 1-inch types. Its subtitle PCAC raps Policarpio on fraud printed in bold 1 cm type is not true. Also, the statement in the 1st paragraph of the article, to the effect that plaintiff was charged with malversation & estafa by
Page 4 of 18
PLAINTIFF maintains that the effect of these false statements was to give the general impression that said investigation by Col. Alba had shown that plaintiff was guilty and that, as a consequence, PCAC had filed the corresponding complaints w/ the fiscals office. She also said that the article did not mention that fact that the number of stencils involved in the charge was only 18 or 20; that the sum allegedly misappropriated by her was only P54, and that the falsification imputed to her was said to have been committed by claiming that certain expenses for which she had sought reimbursement were incurred in trips during the period from July 1 Sept 30 1955, although the trips actually were made from Jul 8Aug 31, 1955. By omitting these details, plaintiff avers that the Aug 11 article had the effect of conveying the idea that the offenses imputed to her were more serious than they really were.
It is obvious that the filing of criminal complaints by another agency of the Govt, 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, wspecially 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.
DEFENDANTS contend that though the complaints were filed, not by the PCAC but by Reyes, this inaccuracy is insignificant & immaterial to the case for the fact is that said complaints were filed. As regards the number of sheets & the nature of the falsification charged, they argue that these details do not affect the truthfulness of the article as a whole. Besides, defendants had no means of knowing such details. SC: 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.
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
Page 5 of 18
2.
HELD: Decision reversed. Defendants ordered to pay plaintiff moral damages, attys fees plus cost.
3.
G.R. No. 133575. December 15, 2000 JUDGE MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. SUN-STAR PUBLISHING, INC., Respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not on the basis of the facts admitted in the pleadings and Respondents affidavits submitted to the Court a quo Petitioner is entitled to a judgment for civil libel as a matter of law considering that only a preponderance of evidence is required to prove Respondents liability? FACTS:
4. 5.
BRANCH 7 Judge Martin Ocampo of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) faces graft charges before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas.Ocampo, in an interview yesterday, down-played the filing of the case saying it is natural for the losing party to hate the judge. He considers the case as pure harassment. Instead, Tan said, Judge Ocampo adjudged counsel Tagra guilty of direct contempt on May 9, 1997 for filing a motion for reconsideration to the order granting the relief. The August 30, 1997 article, appearing on pages two (2) and twenty six (26) of the paper, reads
No jurisdiction, says Judge on Ombudsman
6.
Judge Ocampo, in a letter to Sun-Star Daily, complained that the news report was libelous and damaging to his reputation. He said the paper should have known better that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the case, only the Supreme Court. Sun-Star Daily delayed publication for one day to get the judges comment. He was quoted in the report as describing the case as pure harassment and part of the professional hazards of a judge.
7.
Page 6 of 18
CASE DIGESTS ON LIBEL CM 217 Mass Media Law 1. While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be
malicious, there are exceptions to this general rule, set forth in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, ART. 354. Requirement of publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Third, they were both fair reports. The fairness and balance exercised by private respondent is evident in the fact that petitioner was given a chance to air his side on the graft charges filed against him. In fact, before the first article was published, private respondents reporter took pains to interview petitioner on the matter; and his reactions were equally published in both articles. Finally, the reports were also true accounts of a newsworthy event, the filing of graft charges against a local judge. It cannot be denied that petitioner did face graft raps at the Ombudsman as the complaint filed against him was for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Neither can the narration in the articles be denied as these were merely culled from the subject affidavit-complaint.
4.
Page 7 of 18
2.
Two days before the elections, or on May 9, 1992, respondent Manila Daily Bulletin Publishing Corporation (Manila Bulletin) published the following story: The Comelec has disqualified Hector G. Villanueva as Lakas-NUCD candidate for mayor of Bais City for having been convicted in three administrative cases for grave abuse of authority and harassment in 1987, while he was officer-in-charge of the mayors office of Bais City.
G.R. No. 164437 May 15, 2009 HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC., LETTY JIMENEZ MAGSANOC, ROSAURO G. ACOSTA, JOSE MARIA NOLASCO, ARTEMIO T. ENGRACIA, JR., RAFAEL CHEEKEE, and MANILA DAILY BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, BEN F. RODRIGUEZ, ARTHUR S. SALES, CRIS J. ICBAN, JR., respondents. ISSUES: 1. 2. Whether or not petitioner is required to prove malice to be entitled to damages? Whether or not the respondents are liable for malicious and imputing statements to the petitioner?
A day before the elections or on May 10, 1992, respondent Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) also came out with a similar story, to wit: The Commission on Elections disqualified Hector G. Villanueva as Lakas-NUCD candidate for mayor of Bais City for having been convicted in three administrative cases for grave abuse of authority and harassment in 1987, while he was the officer-in-charge of the mayors office in the city.
FACTS:
Page 8 of 18
5.
Respondents disclaimed liability. They asserted that no malice can be attributed to them as they did not know petitioner and had no interest in the outcome of the election, stressing that the stories were privileged in nature.
6.
On April 18, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner that the defendants Philippine Daily Inquirer, [Inc.] and Manila [Daily] Bulletin Publishing Corporation with their respective officers are liable [for] damages to plaintiff: 1. As moral damages, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, [Inc.] and the Manila [Daily] Bulletin Publishing Corporation are ordered to pay P1,000,000.00 each 2.
Although the stories were false and not privileged, as there is no proof they were obtained from a press conference or release, respondents were not impelled by malice or improper motive. There was also no proof that petitioners supporters junked him due to the
Page 9 of 18
3. YES. Petitioner argues that his cause of action is based on quasidelict which only requires proof of fault or negligence, not proof of malice beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal prosecution for libel. He argues that the case is entirely different and separate from an independent civil action arising from libel under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. He claims he proffered proofs sustaining his claim for damages under quasidelict, not under the law on libel, as malice is hard to prove. He stresses that nowhere in the complaint did he mention libel, and nothing in his complaint shows that his cause of action had some shade of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code. He also did not hint a resort to a criminal proceeding for libel. Facts: 1. A civil action for damages based on libel was filed before the court against Borjal and Soliven for writing and publishing articles that are allegedly derogatory and offensive against Francisco Wenceslao, attacking among others the solicitation letters he send to support a conference to be launch concerning resolving matters on transportation crisis that is tainted with anomalous activities. Wenceslao however was never named in any of the articles nor was the conference he was organizing. The lower court ordered petitioners to indemnify the private respondent for damages which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. A petition for review was filed before the SC contending that private respondent was not sufficiently identified to be the subject of the published articles. ARTURO BORJAL a.k.a. ART BORJAL and MAXIMO SOLIVEN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO WENCESLAO, respondents. G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999
4.
PDI and its officers argue that petitioners complaint clearly lays a cause of action arising from libel as it highlights malice underlying the publications. And as malice is an element of libel, the appellate court committed no error in characterizing the case as one arising from libel. 2.
Issue: Whether or not there are sufficient grounds to constitute guilt of petitioners for libel?
Page 10 of 18
1. Absolutely privileged communication those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art.VI, of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof.
2. Qualifiedly privileged communications those containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this genre belong "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks."
Page 11 of 18
c)
MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC., MARS C. LACONSAY, MYLA C. AGUJA and AGUSTINO G. BINEGAS, JR., petitioners, vs. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ABDULRAHMAN R.T. LINZAG, IBRAHIM F.P. ARCILLA, ABDUL RASHID DE GUZMAN, AL-FARED DA SILVA and IBRAHIM B.A. JUNIO, respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an existence of the elements of libel in the Bulgar article.
that on account of these libelous words Bulgar insulted not only the Muslims in the Philippines but the entire Muslim world, especially every Muslim individual in nonMuslim countries.
3.
MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC. and BINEGAS, JR., in their defense, contended that the article did not mention respondents as the object of the article and therefore were not entitled to damages; and, that the article was merely an expression of belief or opinion and was published without malice nor intention to cause damage, prejudice or injury to Muslims. The RTC dismissed the complaint holding that Islamic Dawah et al. failed to establish their cause of action since the persons allegedly defamed by the article were not specifically identified. The alleged libelous article refers to the larger collectivity of Muslims for which the readers of the libel could not readily identify the personalities of the persons defamed. Hence, it is difficult for an individual Muslim member to prove that the defamatory remarks apply to him. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. It opined that it was "clear from the disputed article that the defamation was directed to all adherents of the Islamic faith. This libelous imputation undeniably applied to the plaintiff-appellants who are Muslims sharing the same religious beliefs." It added that the suit for damages was a "class suit" and that ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.'s religious status as a Muslim umbrella organization gave it the requisite personality to sue and protect the interests of all Muslims. MVRS brought the issue to the SC.
4.
FACTS:
5.
1. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., a local
federation of more than seventy (70) Muslim religious organizations, and some individual Muslims field in the RTC of Manila a complaint for damages in their own behalf and as a class suit in behalf of the Muslim members nationwide against MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC and some its staff arising from an article published in the 1 August 1992 issue of Bulgar, a daily tabloid. 6. 2. The complaint: a) b) The statement was insulting and damaging to the Muslims; that these words alluding to the pig as the God of the Muslims was not only published out of sheer ignorance but with intent to hurt the feelings, cast insult and
RULING OF THE CASE: HELD The article was not libelous. Petition GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision
Page 12 of 18
1.
There was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. An individual Muslim has a reputation that is personal, separate and distinct in the community. Each has a varying interest and a divergent political and religious view. There is no injury to the reputation of the individual Muslims who constitute this community that can give rise to an action for group libel. Each reputation is personal in character to every person. Together, the Muslims do not have a single common reputation that will give them a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy. Defamation, which includes libel (in general, written) and slander (in general, oral), means the offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff. Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press, under the Bill of Rights. The SC used the reasoning in Newsweek v IAC: where the defamation is alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it is essential that the statement must be so
2.
7.
3.
4.
(d) 8.
5.
"Extreme and outrageous conduct" means conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The actions must have been so terrifying as naturally to humiliate, embarrass or frighten the plaintiff.
Page 13 of 18
10.
3. 4. 5. 6.
(b)
(c)
Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., seeks in effect to assert the interests not only of the Muslims in the Philippines but of the whole Muslim world as well. Private respondents obviously lack the sufficiency of numbers to represent such a global group; neither have they been able to demonstrate the identity.
7.
RULING OF THE CASE: Richard Gutierrez, petitioner vs. Jo-Ann Maglipon, editor in chief of PEP, respondent 1. The Associate Prosecutor Mary Jane Sytat, cited "lack of probable cause" in dismissing Gutierrezs libel complaint against editor-inchief Jo-Ann Maglipon, managing editor Karen Pagsolingan and writer Ferdinand "Bong" Godinez. The resolution acknowledged that PEP committed a lapse when it published a story on the gun-toting incident allegedly involving Gutierrez and fellow actor Michael Flores in March. The article, Gutierrez complained, gave an impression that he was a troublemaker.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maglipon is liable of malicious published articles on PEP website?
2.
Page 14 of 18
Facts:
4.
The resolution also pointed out that the complainant failed to prove that the publication of the PEP article was attended with malice. Malice in Fact or Malice as a Fact. -. It is the malice which must be proven by the plaintiff. He must prove the purpose of the accused is to malign or harm or injure his reputation. This arises either because: (i) the article is not defamatory on its face or if libelous it is ambiguous (ii) the accused was able to overcome the presumption of malice.
Issues: 1. 2. 3. Whether or not Tulfo is guilty of false and malicious imputations in his column in Remate. Whether or not the assailed articles are privileged. Whether or not the assailed articles are fair commentaries.
5.
YES. It cited Maglipons apology and order to immediately pullout the article and PEPs attempt to get Flores side of the story as sufficient evidence to show that the respondents have no desire to deliberately injure the reputation of the complainant.
1.
CASE DIGEST GR Nos. 161032 and 161176 Attorney Ding So of the Bureau of Customs, petitioner vs. Erwin Tulfo,
YES, For the ruling in Borjal case was not applied to this libel case:
a. b.
The case was based on a criminal case. There was sufficient identification of the complainant.
Page 15 of 18
c. d. 2.
The subject was not a private citizen, in this case, the subject is a public official. In this case it is not in the scope of fair commentaries on matters of public interest.
a.
The absence of details of the acts committed by the subject. These are plain and simple and mere gossip accusations, backed up by the word of one unnamed source. Journalists do not rely on fictions instead on truth. There must be some foundation to their reports; these reports must be warranted by facts.
NO. The columns were mere trivialized and editorialized, the columns dont have evidences to substantiate the claims and attacks to Atty. So. The articles cannot be privileged simply because the target was a public official.
b.
a.
Tulfo made no effort to verify the information given by his source or even to ascertain the identity of the person he was accusing. Tulfo abandoned the consistent with good faith and reasonable care when he wrote the subject articles. This is no case of mere error or honest mistake, but a case of a journalist abdicating his responsibility to verify his story and instead misinforming the public. Tulfo had written and published the articles with reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not. Evidence of malice: The fact that Tulfo continuously published articles lambasting Atty. So after the commencement of an action. This is a clear indication of his intent to malign Atty. So, no matter the cost, and is proof of malice.
The columns of Tulfo are not fair and true. Tulfo failed to do research before making his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless.
b.
c.
d.
Velasco, Jr., J: Elements of fair commentary (to be considered privileged): a. That it is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of a statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a public officer in the exercise of his functions; b. That it is made in good faith; c. That it is without any comments or remarks.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, petitioner vs. Philippine Daily Inquirer and Alfonso Yuchengco, ISSUES: Whether or not Yuchengco is liable of imputations and allegations detrimental to Estrada? Whether or not the Philippine Daily Inquirer is liable of false and malicious statements against Estrada?
3.
NO. Tulfo failed to substantiate or even attempt to verify his story before publication. Moreover he added facts based on his standards of veracity.
Page 16 of 18
1.
2.
Former President Joseph Estrada filed yesterday a libel suit against business tycoon Alfonso Yuchengco and the Philippine Daily Inquirer over allegations that he coerced the businessman to sell his shares in the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT), the countrys largest telecommunications firm. In his six-page complaint Estrada also named as respondents Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) publisher Isagani Yambot, editor-inchief Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc and reporters Daxim Lucas, Christine Avendano and Doris Dumlao. PDI published the story entitled Erap bullied me, says Yuchengco-Taipan confirms coercion in PLDT deal, which was based on a privilege speech delivered by Senator Panfilo Lacson last Monday.
2.
3. 4.
5. 6. 7.
In filing the complaint, Estrada denied Yuchengcos allegation and said the news report was based on false and malicious statements. The former president said in his complaint. Respondent Yuchengcos statements imputing to me the commission of serious crimes are mere fabrications. I vehemently deny having committed any unlawful or criminal act against respondent Yuchengco or the members of his family in relation to the sale made by the respondent of his Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corp. (PTIC)/PLDT shares in favor of First Pacific (First Pacific Co. Ltd), As to the liability of the Inquirer, Estrada said the respondents caused the printing, publication and circulation of false and malicious statements without first validating them. Estrada asked P10 million to P20 million worth of damages. February 22, 2010 the CA dismissed the libel suit to PDI.
(a) In Borjal vs. Ct. of Appeals, (301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999) it was held that the enumeration in Article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications because fair comments on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander (b). They refer to events, developments, or matters in which the public as a whole has a legitimate interest. 3. Since the privileged character of a communication destroys the presumption of malice, the onus of proving actual malice lies on complainant Estrada [but] no malice can be presumed from the questioned statement because complainant is a public figure, the Justice department said. Doctrine of Privilege Communication
RULING OF THE CASE: 1. In dismissing the libel case, the Justice department pointed that Yuchengco never said that Estrada intimated and threatened him to sell his PLDT shares. The questioned statement can be interpreted in no other way than that Yuchengcos shareholdings in PTIC were taken from Qualifiedly/Conditionally Privileged Communication: this refers to communications in which the law presumes the absence of malice, thus they are initially not actionable. The burden therefore is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of actual malice.
Page 17 of 18
4.
It added that Estrada failed to prove that Yuchengco was prompted by personal ill-will to inflict harm on the latters reputation in circulating the questioned statement.
5.
In the same resolution, the Justice department also dismissed the charges against the PDI editors and reporters, saying that Estrada has not shown the falsity of the contents of the news report or that respondents were aware that they were false or that there was reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false or not.
Page 18 of 18