GMA NETWORK, INC. (formerly known as
“REPUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.”) and REY VIDAL,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No. 146848
October 17, 2006
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
JESUS G. BUSTOS, M.D., TEODORA R.
OCAMPO, M.D., VICTOR V. BUENCAMINO, M.D., CESAR F. VILLAFUERTE, M.D.,
ARTEMIO T. ORDINARIO, M.D., and VIRGILIO C. BASILIO, M.D.,
Respondents. |
D
E C I S I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this Petition for Review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
is the decision[2] dated January 25, 2001 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CV No. 52240 which reversed and set aside an earlier
decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch
64, in Civil Case No. 88-1952, an action for damages thereat commenced
by the herein respondents Jesus G. Bustos, Teodora R. Ocampo, Victor V.
Buencamino, Cesar F. Villafuerte, Artemio T. Ordinario and Virgilio C.
Basilio, all physicians by profession and the former chairman and
members, respectively, of the Board of Medicine, against the herein
petitioners GMA Network, Inc. (formerly Republic Broadcasting System,
Inc.) and Rey Vidal.
chan robles virtual law library
The facts:cralaw:red
In August 1987, the Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) conducted the physicians’ licensure examinations. Out
of the total two thousand eight hundred thirty-five (2,835) examinees
who took the examinations, nine hundred forty-one (941) failed.
On February 10, 1988, a certain Abello and over two hundred other
unsuccessful examinees filed a Petition for Mandamus before the RTC of
Manila to compel the PRC and the board of medical examiners to re-check
and reevaluate the test papers. As alleged, mistakes in the counting of
the total scores and erroneous checking of answers to test questions
vitiated the results of the examinations.
As news writer and reporter of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. assigned to
gather news from courts, among other beats, its co-petitioner Rey Vidal
covered the filing of the mandamus petition. After securing a
copy of the petition, Vidal composed and narrated the news coverage for
the ten o’clock evening news edition of GMA’s Channel 7 Headline News.
The text of the news report,[4] as drafted and narrated by Vidal and
which GMA Network, Inc. aired and televised on February 10, 1988,
runs:
chan robles virtual law library
Some 227 examinees in the last August Physician Licensure Examinations
today asked the Manila [RTC] to compel the [PRC] and the Medical Board
of Examiners to recheck the August 1987 test papers. The
petitioners [examinees] today went to the Presiding Judge to also
ask for a special raffling of the case considering that the next
physicians examinations have been scheduled for February [1988].
They said that the gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical and capricious
checking that must have been going on for years should now be stopped
once and for all.
The last examination was conducted last August at the PRC central
offices, the Far Eastern University and the Araullo High School, the
exams on multiple choice or matching type involve 12 subjects including
general medicine, biochemistry, surgery and obstetrics and gynecology.
21 schools participated in the examination represented by some 2,835
medical student graduates, 1,894 passed and 141 failed.
The results of the exams were released December 9 and were published
the following day in metropolitan papers last years (sic).
A group of failing examinees enlisted the help of the Offices of the
President and the Vice President and as a result were allowed by
PRC to obtain the official set of test questions. The
students then researched and produced the key answers to the key
questions.
The petitioners were also allowed to see their own test papers, most of
them copying the papers
With these copies, they were able to match the scores and the correct
answers in the examinations. They found that the errors in
checking were so material that they actually lowered the scores that
formed the individual ratings of the examinees in the various subjects.
Examples of the discrepancies are to be found in identical answers
being rated as incorrect in one examinee’s paper but correct in
another. There is also the case of two different answers being
rated as correct. There are indications of wrong counting of
total scores per subject so that the totals are either short by two up
to four points.
Finally, there are raw scores that have been transmuted incorrectly so
that a passing score was rendered a failure. The petitioners said
that the haphazard and whimsical and capricious checking should now be
stopped once and for all. They said that the nine years formal
studies and the one year internship not to mention the expenses and the
blood, sweat, and tears of the students and their families will have
been rendered nugatory. The petitioners also noted that Com.
Francia had promised last January 12 to rectify the errors in the
checking and yet they have not received the appropriate action promised
whereas the next exams have been set for Feb. 20, 21, 27 and 28. (Words
in bracket added)
Stung by what they claim to be a false, malicious and one-sided report
filed and narrated by a remorseless reporter, the herein respondents
instituted on September 21, 1988 with the RTC of Makati City a damage
suit against Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., then known as the Republic
Broadcasting System, Inc. In their complaint,[5] docketed as
Civil Case No. 88-1952 and raffled to Branch 64 of the court, the
respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, alleged, among other things, that
then defendants Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., in reckless disregard for
the truth, defamed them by word of mouth and simultaneous visual
presentation on GMA Network, Inc.’s Channel 7. They added
that, as a measure to make a forceful impact on their audience, the
defendants made use of an unrelated and old footage (showing
physicians wearing black armbands) to make it appear that other doctors
were supporting and sympathizing with the complaining unsuccessful
examinees. According to the plaintiffs, the video footage in question
actually related to a 1982 demonstration staged by doctors and
personnel of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) regarding wage and
economic dispute with hospital management.
In their answer with counterclaim, the defendants denied any
wrongdoing, maintaining that their February 10, 1988 late evening
telecast on the filing of the mandamus petition was contextually a
concise and objective narration of a matter of public concern. They
also alleged that the press freedom guarantee covered the telecast in
question, undertaken as it was to inform, without malice, the viewing
public on the conduct of public officials. And vis-à-vis the
particular allegation on the film footages of the PGH demonstration,
defendants tagged such footages as “neutral.” Pressing the point,
defendants hastened to add that the footages were accompanied, when
shown, by an appropriate voiceover, thus negating the idea conjured by
the plaintiffs to create an effect beyond an obligation to report.
In the course of trial, the plaintiffs presented testimonial evidence
to prove their allegations about the Vidal report having exposed them,
as professionals, to hatred, contempt and ridicule. And in a bid
to establish malice and bad faith on the part of the defendants, the
plaintiffs adduced evidence tending to show that the former exerted no
effort toward presenting their (plaintiffs’) side in subsequent
telecasts.
In a decision[6] dated October 17, 1995, the trial court found
for the herein petitioners, as defendants a quo, on the postulate that
the Vidal telecast report in question is privileged.
Dispositively, the decision reads:cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing considerations, plaintiffs’ complaint for damages against
defendants Republic Broadcasting System Incorporated and Rey Vidal is
hereby DISMISSED.
chan robles virtual law library
The defendants’ counterclaim for damages is likewise
dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Following the denial of their motion for reconsideration,[7] herein
respondents went on appeal to the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 52240. As
stated at the threshold hereof, the appellate court, in its decision[8]
of January 25, 2001, reversed and set aside that of the trial court, to
wit: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated October 17, 1995 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
[petitioners] are hereby ordered to pay, in solidum, the following:cralaw:red
a) the amount of P100,000.00 for each of the
[respondents] as moral damages;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
b) the amount of P100,000.00 for each of the
[respondents] as exemplary damages;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
c) the amount of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fee;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
d) and cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. (Words in brackets added)
Hence, petitioners’ present recourse, submitting for the Court’s
consideration the following questions:cralaw:red
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA, AFTER DECLARING THE NEWS TELECAST
OF
FEBRUARY 10, 1988 AS QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN INJECTING ACTUAL MALICE
TO THE NEWS TELECAST OF FEBRUARY 10, 1988 JUST SO THAT RESPONDENT BOARD
OF MEDICINE COULD RECOVER MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
B.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND
ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN COMPLETELY REJECTING PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCE THAT THE
CHARACTER GENERATED WORDS ‘FILE VIDEO’ WERE INDICATED ON SCREEN TO
IDENTIFY THE SHOWING OF THE OLD FILM FOOTAGE IN THE NEWS TELECAST OF
FEBRUARY 10, 1988.
C.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
IMPUTING MALICE UPON PETITIONERS FOR NOT PRESENTING A TAPE COPY OF THE
NEWS TELECAST OF FEBRUARY 10, 1988 ON THE GRATUITOUS DECLARATION THAT A
TAPE COPY COULD BE EASILY SECURED FROM THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION (NTC) WHICH ALLEGEDLY KEEPS FILE COPIES OF ALL SHOWS FOR A
CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
D.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT BOARD OF MEDICINE CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS THEREOF, WHO NEVER QUESTIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION
DATED JANUARY 25, 2001 IN A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PETITION BEFORE
THE HONORABLE COURT, CAN ASK FOR AN INCREASED AWARD IN DAMAGES FROM THE
HONORABLE COURT UNDER THEIR COMMENT DATED 7 MAY 2001.
Summed up, the issues tendered in this petition boil down to the
following: (1) whether or not the televised news report in
question on the filing of the petition for mandamus against the
respondents is libelous; and (2) whether or not the insertion of the
old film footage depicting the doctors and personnel of PGH in their
1982 demonstrations constitutes malice to warrant the award of damages
to the respondents.
It bears to stress, at the outset, that the trial court found the
disputed news report not actionable under the law on libel, hence no
damages may be recovered. Wrote that court:
chan robles virtual law library
This Court finds the
telecast of February 10, 1988 aired over Channel 7 by [petitioner] Rey
Vidal as a straight news report of the acts and conduct of the members
of the Medical Board of Examiners who are public officers, devoid of
comment or remarks, and thus privileged, and recognized under the 1987 Constitution.
A comparative examination of the telecast of the disputed
news report with the Petition for Mandamus entitled Abello, et al., vs. Professional
Regulation Commission
filed before the [RTC] by the medical examinees reveals that the
disputed news report is but a narration of the allegations contained in
and circumstances attending the filing of the said Petition for
Mandamus. In the case of Cuenco
vs. Cuenco,
G.R. No. L-29560, March 31, 1976 , [it was] held that the correct
rule is that a fair and true report of a complaint filed in Court
without remarks nor comments even before an answer is filed or a
decision promulgated should be covered by the privilege. xxx. This
Court adopts the ruling [in Cuenco] to support its finding of fact that
the disputed news report consists merely of a summary of the
allegations in the said Petition for Mandamus, filed by the medical
examinees, thus the same falls within the protected ambit of privileged
communication.
x x x x x x
x x x
Thus, [petitioners], in consideration of the foregoing
observations cannot be held liable for damages claimed by
[respondents] for simply bringing to fore information on subjects of
public concern.[9] (Words in brackets supplied.)
The CA, too, regarded the text of the news telecast as
not
libelous and as a qualifiedly privileged communication, “[it having
been] merely lifted or quoted from the contents and allegations in the
said petition [for mandamus].”[10] But unlike the trial court,
the CA saw fit to award damages to the respondents, it being its
posture that the insertion to the news telecast of the
unrelated 1982 PGH picket film footage is evidence of malice.
Without quite saying so, the CA viewed the footage insertion as giving
a televised news report otherwise privileged a libelous
dimension. In the precise words of the appellate court:cralaw:red
While it is the duty of the media to report to the public
matters of public concern and interest, the report should be a fair,
accurate and true report of the proceedings. The subject telecast
failed in this aspect. The insertion of the film footage showing
the doctors’ demonstration at the PGH several times during the news
report on the petition filed by the board flunkers undoubtedly created
an impression that the said demonstration was related to the filing of
the case by the board flunkers. The insertion of the film footage
without the words ‘file video’, and which had no connection whatsoever
to the petition, was done with the knowledge of the [petitioners],
thus, in wanton and reckless disregard of their duty to the public to
render a fair, accurate and true report of the same.
x x x x x x
x x x
The findings of malice on the part of the [petitioners]
should not be construed as a censure to the freedom of the press since
their right to render a news on matters of public concern was not the
issue but rather the misrepresentation made when they inserted a film
footage of the doctors’ demonstration which created a wrong impression
of the real situation. Unquestionably, the news reporting,
interview and the showing of [the flunkers] filing the case were fair
reporting. At this point, that would have been sufficient to
inform the public of what really happened. However, for reasons
only known to [petitioners], they inserted the questioned film footage
which had no relation to the news being reported. There is no
other conclusion that there was motive to create an impression that the
issue also affected the doctors which forced them to demonstrate. xxx.
(Words in brackets supplied).
With the view we take of this case, given the parallel unchallenged
determination of the two courts below that what petitioner Vidal
reported was privileged, the award of damages is untenable as it is
paradoxical. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
An award of damages under the premises presupposes the commission of an
act amounting to defamatory imputation or libel, which, in turn,
presupposes malice. Libel is the public and malicious imputation
to another of a discreditable act or condition tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person.[11] Liability for libel attaches present the
following elements: (a) an allegation or imputation of a discreditable
act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the imputation;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.[12]
chan robles virtual law library
Malice or ill-will in libel must either be proven (malice in fact) or
may be taken for granted in view of the grossness of the imputation
(malice in law). Malice, as we wrote in Brillante v. Court of Appeals,[13]
is a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by
personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but
merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed. Malice
implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. It is
present when it is shown that the author of the libelous or defamatory
remarks made the same with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof.
In the instant case, there can be no quibbling that what petitioner
corporation aired in its Channel 7 in the February 10, 1988
late evening newscast was basically a narration of the contents of the
aforementioned petition for mandamus. This is borne by the records of
the case and was likewise the finding of the trial court. And the
narration had for its subject nothing more than the purported mistakes
in paper checking and the errors in the counting and tallying of the
scores in the August 1987 physicians’ licensure examinations
attributable to the then chairman and members of the Board of Medicine.
Conceding hypothetically that some failing specifically against the
respondents had been ascribed in that news telecast, it bears to stress
that not all imputations of some discreditable act or omission,
if there be any, are considered malicious thus supplying the
ground for actionable libel. For, although every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be malicious, the presumption does not exist
in matters considered privileged. In fine, the privilege destroys the
presumption.
Privileged matters may be absolute or qualified.[14] Absolutely
privileged matters are not actionable regardless of the existence of
malice in fact. In absolutely privileged communications, the mala or
bona fides of the author is of no moment as the occasion provides an
absolute bar to the action. Examples of these are speeches or
debates made by Congressmen or Senators in the Congress or in any
of its committees. On the other hand, in qualifiedly or conditionally
privileged communications, the freedom from liability for an otherwise
defamatory utterance is conditioned on the absence of express malice or
malice in fact. The second kind of privilege, in fine, renders the
writer or author susceptible to a suit or finding of libel provided the
prosecution established the presence of bad faith or malice in fact. To
this genre belongs “private communications” and “fair and true report
without any comments or remarks” falling under and described as
exceptions in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.[15]
To be sure, the enumeration under the aforecited Article 354 is not an
exclusive list of conditional privilege communications as the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of the speech and of the press has
expanded the privilege to include fair commentaries on matters of
public interest.[16] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the case at bench, the news telecast in question clearly falls under
the second kind of privileged matter, the same being the product of a
simple narration of the allegations set forth in the mandamus petition
of examinees Abello, et al., devoid of any comment or remark. Both the
CA and the trial court in fact found the narration to be without
accompanying distortive or defamatory comments or remarks. What at
bottom petitioners Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., then did was
simply to inform the public of the mandamus petition filed against the
respondent doctors who were admittedly the then chairman and members of
the Board of Medicine. It was clearly within petitioner Vidal’s
job as news writer and reporter assigned to cover government
institutions to keep the public abreast of recent developments
therein. It must be reiterated that the courts a quo had determined the news
report in question to be qualifiedly privileged communication protected
under the 1987
Constitution. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This brings us to the more important question of whether or not the
complaining respondents, in their effort to remove the protection
accorded by the privilege, succeeded in establishing ill-will and
malice on the part of the petitioners in their televised presentation
of the news report in dispute, thus committing libel.
The CA, adopting the respondents’ line on the matter of malice,
resolved the question in the affirmative. As the CA noted, the
insertion of an old film footage showing doctors wearing black armbands
and demonstrating at the PGH, without the accompanying
character-generated words “file video,” created the impression that
other doctors were supporting and sympathizing with the unsuccessful
examinees.
The Court disagrees.
Contrary to the CA’s findings, the identifying character-generated
words “file video” appeared to have been superimposed on screen,
doubtless to disabuse the minds of televiewers of the idea that a
particular footage is current. In the words of the trial court,
the phrase “file video” was “indicated on screen purposely to prevent
misrepresentation so as not to confuse the viewing public.”[17] The
trial court added the observation that “the use of file footage
in TV news reporting is a standard practice.”[18] At any rate, the
absence of the accompanying character-generated words “file video”
would not change the legal situation insofar as the privileged nature
of the audio-video publication complained of is concerned. For, with
the view we take of the state of things, the video footage was not
libel in disguise; standing without accompanying sounds or voices, it
was meaningless, or, at least, conveyed nothing derogatory in nature.
chan robles virtual law library
And lest it be overlooked, personal hurt or embarrassment or offense,
even if real, is not automatically equivalent to
defamation. The law against defamation protects one’s interest in
acquiring, retaining and enjoying a reputation “as good as one’s
character and conduct warrant” in the community.[19] Clearly then, it
is the community, not personal standards, which shall be taken into
account in evaluating any allegations of libel and any claims for
damages on account thereof.
So it is that in Bulletin Publishing
Corp. v. Noel,[20] we held:cralaw:red
The term “community” may of
course be drawn as narrowly or as broadly as the user of the term and
his purposes may require. The reason why for purposes of the law
on libel the more general meaning of community must be adopted in the
ascertainment of relevant standards, is rooted deep in our
constitutional law. That reason relates to the fundamental public
interest in the protection and promotion of free speech and expression,
an interest shared by all members of the body politic and territorial
community. A newspaper should be free to report on events
and developments in which the public has a legitimate interest,
wherever they may take place within the nation and as well in the
outside world, with minimum fear of being hauled to court by one group
or another (however defined in scope) on criminal or civil charges for
libel, so long as the newspaper respects and keep within the general
community. Any other rule on defamation, in a national community
like ours with many, diverse cultural, social, religious an other
groupings, is likely to produce an unwholesome “chilling effect” upon
the constitutionally protected operations of the press and other
instruments of information and education.
It cannot be over-emphasized furthermore that the showing
of
the 1982 film footage, assuming for argument that it contained
demeaning features, was actually accompanied or simultaneously
voiced over by the narration of the news report lifted from the filing
of the mandamus petition. As aptly put by the petitioners without
controversion from the respondents, there was nothing in the news
report to indicate an intent to utilize such old footages to create
another news story beyond what was reported.[21]
To be sure, actual malice, as a concept in libel, cannot
plausibly be deduced from the fact of petitioners having dubbed
in their February 10, 1988 telecast an old unrelated video footage. As
it were, nothing in the said footage, be it taken in isolation or in
relation to the narrated Vidal report, can be viewed as reputation
impeaching; it did not contain an attack, let alone a false one, on the
honesty, character or integrity or like personal qualities of any of
the respondents, who were not even named or specifically identified in
the telecast. It has been said that if the matter is not per se
libelous, malice cannot be inferred from the mere fact of
publication.[22] And as records tend to indicate, the petitioners,
particularly Vidal, do not personally know or had dealings with any of
the respondents. The Court thus perceives no reason or motive on the
part of either petitioner for malice. The respondents too had failed to
substantiate by preponderant evidence that petitioners were animated by
a desire to inflict them unjustifiable harm or at least to place them
in a discomforting light.
Surely, the petitioners’ failure, perhaps even their
indisposition, to obtain and telecast the respondents’ side is
not an indicia of malice. Even the CA, by remaining mum on this point,
agrees with this proposition and with the petitioners’ proffered
defense on the matter. As petitioner Vidal said while on the witness
box, his business as a reporter is to report what the public has the
right to know, not to comment on news and events, obviously taking a
cue from the pronouncement of the US Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York Times Co.
v. Connor[23]
that “a reporter may rely on statements made by a single source
even though they reflect only one side of the story without fear of
libel prosecution by a public official.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
What is more, none of the herein respondents ever made a claim or
pretence that he or all of them collectively was or were among the
demonstrating PGH doctors in the 1982 video footage. It thus
puzzles the mind how they could claim to have been besmirched by the
use of the same video in the subject news telecast.
Given the foregoing considerations, the propriety of the award by the
CA of moral and exemplary damages need not detain us long. Suffice it
to state that moral damages may be recovered only if the
existence of the factual and legal bases for the claim and their
causal connection to the acts complained of are satisfactorily
proven.[24] Sadly, the required quantum of proof is miserably
wanting in this case. This is as it should be. For, moral damages,
albeit incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed not to impose a
penalty but to compensate one for injury sustained and actual damages
suffered.[25] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, may only be awarded
if the claimants, respondents in this case, were able to establish
their right to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.[26] Not being entitled to moral damages, neither may the
respondents lay claim for exemplary damages.
In all, the Court holds and so rules that the subject news report
was clearly a fair and true report, a simple narration of the
allegations contained in and circumstances surrounding the filing by
the unsuccessful examinees of the petition for mandamus before the
court, and made without malice. Thus, we find the petitioners
entitled to the protection and immunity of the rule on privileged
matters under Article 354 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code.
It follows that they too cannot be held liable for damages sought by
the respondents, who, during the period material, were holding public
office.
We close this ponencia with the following oft-quoted excerpts from an
old but still very much applicable holding of the Court on how
public men should deport themselves in the face of criticism:cralaw:red
The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a
full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The
sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men
in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the
wound can be assuaged by the balm of clear conscience. A public officer
must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his
officials acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the
individual be exalted. x x x.[27]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
petition is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assailed decision dated January 25, 2001 of the
appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 52240 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and that of the trial
court is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED
in toto.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, J., Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Endnotes
[1]
As filed, the petition impleads the Court of Appeals as respondent,
which should not have been under Sec. 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A.
Salazar-Fernando and concurred
in by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner (now a Comelec Commissioner)
and Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Rollo, pp. 11-26.
[3] Id. at 27-34.
chan robles virtual law library
[4] Petitioners’
Memorandum, pp. 9-11, Id. at 398-400 and Respondents’
Memorandum, pp. 24-25, Id. at 365–366.
[5] Annex “D,” Petition, Id. at 102 et
seq.
[6] Supra note 3.
[7] Per Order dated January 17, 1996;
Annex “M,” Petition, Rollo, p. 163.
[8] Supra note 2.
[9] Supra note 3 at 6 and 8.
[10] Supra note 2 at 9.
[11] Article 353 of the Revised
Penal Code.
chan robles virtual law library
[12] Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
47971, October 31,1990, 191 SCRA 61.
[13] G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004,
440 SCRA 441, citing
US v. Cañete, 38 Phil. 253 (1918) and Vasquez v. Court of
Appeals, 373 Phil. 238, 314 SCRA 460 (1999), citing New York Times v.
Sullivan, 376 US. 254 (1964).
[14] Flor v. People, G.R. No. 139987,
March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 440, citing Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987
Constitution and Regalado, Florenz, Criminal Law Conspectus, p. 646
(1st Ed.).
[15] 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; and
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.
[16]
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999, 301 SCRA
1.
[17] Page 7 of the RTC Decision; Rollo,
p. 98.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Bulletin Publishing Corp. v.
Noel, G.R. No. L-76565, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 255, citing Harper
and James, The Law of Torts, Vol. 1, p. 349 (1956).
[20] Id., citing Weiman v. Updegraff, 344
U.S. 183, (1052); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (1964);
Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, (1967); and The Chilling Effect in
Constitutional Law, 69 Columbia L. Rev. 808, (1969).
[21] CA Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 15.
[22] Reyes, Jr. v. CA, 47 O.G. 3569.
[23] No. 22362 [August 4, 1966], 365 F.
2d 567,576.
[24] Article 2217, New Civil Code of the
Philippines.
[25] Simex International, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 88013, March19,
1990, 183 SCRA 360.
[26] Article 2234, New Civil Code of the
Philippines.
[27] United v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731, 740-41
(1918).
|