BARIUAN, ROSELLE (16) 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. FACTS: Petitioner was one of the mayoralty candidates in Negros Oriental during the May 1992 election. He was petitioned for disqualification from running in the elections. Said petition, however, was denied by the COMELEC. How before the elections, respondent Manila Daily Bulletin Publishing Corporation (Manila Bulletin) published the story that the petitioner has been disqualified to run as Lakas-NUCD candidate for mayor of Bais City for having been convicted in three administrative cases for grave abuse of authority and harassment and a similar story was also published by respondent Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. When results came out, it turned out that petitioner failed in his mayoralty bid and believes that his defeat was caused by the publications of PDI and Manila Bulletin. Hence, petitioner sued respondents PDI and Manila Bulletin as well as their publishers and editors for damages. He alleged that the articles were "maliciously timed" to defeat him. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is required to prove malice to be entitled to damages. RULING: The SC ruled in favor of the respondents. It must be stressed that the fact that a communication or publication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable; the privileged character simply does away with the presumption of malice, which the plaintiff has to prove in such a case. That proof in a civil case must of course be based on preponderance of evidence.

BARIUAN, ROSELLE

(29) [G.R. No. 107824. July 5, 1996] SUPERCLEAN SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND, . FACTS: Petitioner Superclean Services filed with the RTC of Manila a complaint for Mandamus/Certiorari With Preliminary Injunction And/Or Restraining Order against private respondent Home Development and Mutual Fund. Petitioner alleged that at the public bidding for janitorial services for the year 1990 it was the "lowest or best bidder," but private respondent refused without just cause to award the contract to it and instead caused the publication on a Notice of Rebidding .In its answer, private respondent defended its action on the ground that not a single bid submitted complied with the terms and conditions agreed upon in the pre-bidding conference. The trial court set petitioners application for preliminary injunction for hearing and in the meantime ordered private respondent to desist from conducting a rebidding and also granted leave to private respondent to hire janitorial services on a month-tomonth basis to insure the maintenance of its offices.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary However, petitioner moved for the admission of a "Supplemental Complaint." Petitioner alleged that because the contract of services was for the furnishing of janitorial service for the previous year, the delay in the decision of the case had rendered the case moot and academic "without petitioner obtaining complete relief to redress the wrong committed against it by private respondent, but the trial court denied petitioners motion, finding "no merit in and no basis supporting it" and set the continuation of the trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was likewise denied. The trial court said that admission of the "Supplemental Complaint" would "not only radically but substantially change the issues" by "materially varying the grounds of relief, and would operate unjustly to the prejudice of the rights of private respondent."chanroblesvir ISSUE: Whether or not it is proper to file a Supplemental Complaint in order to seek a different relief in view of developments rendering the original relief impossible of attainment. RULING: The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to admit the "Supplemental Complaint" and to treat it as an amendment to the original complaint or to require petitioner to file an amended complaint, merging the relevant allegations of its original complaint and "Supplemental Complaint," and thereafter to allow private respondent to file an answer.chanroblesvirtual The "Supplemental Complaint" must be admitted because it appears to have been filed under Rule 10 of the Rules of Court which provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 6. Matters Subject of Supplemental Pleadings. Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrence or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party should plead thereto, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor.chanrobl