Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > September 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2033 September 19, 1905 - RUFINA CAUSIN v. FORTUNATO RICAMORA

005 Phil 31:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2033. September 19, 1905. ]

RUFINA CAUSIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORTUNATO RICAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.

M. Cue, for Appellant.

W .J . Wood, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LIBEL. — Article found in the opinion is libelous. (Act. No. 277. sec. 1.)

2. ID; JUSTIFICATION. — The fact that the manager of the paper in which the article was published, had requested the defendant to answer another article published sometime before in the same paper, is no justification for the libel written by the defendant.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


This is an action for Libel. The article in questions was written in the Visayan language, and published in that language in a newspaper of Cebu, called "Ang Suga." In the court below some questions was made as to the accuracy of the translation of the article into Spanish, but the appellant, in his brief in this court, waives such objections. The article thus translated is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Carta de Dumanjug Sr. D. Vicente Sotto, Director de Ang Suga. Respetable Senior: Cuando lei el articulo que se ocupaba de mi persona en el Num. 120 del periodico Ang Suga, el aqui apreciamos, me vi obligado o tomar la pluma, para manifestarle unas cuantas palabras para reprehender las mentiras de Rufina Causin, palabras que le suplico se sirva insertar en su periodico.

"Es una mentira, Sr. Director, el que yo la haya arrestado y aprisionado por tres dias. En in manana de un Domingo 20 de Julio el Consejo Municipal de este pueblo se reunio en sesion para tratar de diferentes asuntos; y entre ellos uno, referente a la Señorita Rufina Causin, maestra, que se vio obligada a dirigirse a este pequeno pueblo despues de haber sido celebre o famosa en Iloilo; porque en los años pasados creo que fue Directora de un Colegio ensenando muchas asignaturas y entre ellas, ’Musica, Pintura y Dibujo’ y en este ultimo, para que veamos su fama en aquel Colegio, me han informado que la ayudaba un Sr. muy conocido, llamado E. Lanza.

"De lo que se trato sobre esta ’Santolona’ mujer, era acerca de la ferocidad con que trataba a las ninas en la Escuela; bofeteaba, pellizcaba, desgarraba los cabellos de las ninas que cometiesen alguna falta, sea de cual fuere; como el Consejo de este pueblo comprende, que si les esta mandado por el Codigo, el domar las ferocidades de un animal, pues con mas razon se debia domar las ferocidades de un hombre o mujer; puesto que este es mayor en dignidad, aunque no haya pasado por ser ’profesora’ de un Colegio para la enseñanza del ’dibujo’ ayudado por E. Lanza.

"Asi es que el Consejo averiguo la declaracion de los hechos de la Senorita Rufina Causin en la Escuela; y para este me dijeron que mandase llamar, las chiquillas que fueron maltratadas, asi como quien las maltrato.

"Cuando yo la mande llamar aquella manana, pues cumplia con la voluntad del Consejo, para que ella compareciese un ratito ante la Junta, para oir las acusaciones que se la hacia, y para que ella manifestara su defensa y razones para que asi se viese si era o no verdad las acusaciones hechas por las chiquillas.

"Pues creo que sera esto lo que querra decir o llamar la Sra. Pinay ’prision’ que se impuso a su santa y respetable persona por espacio de tres dias. Porque si esto no es, pues ya no hay otro. Aqui estan los Concejales, Aguacil, Carcelero, todo el pueblo y hasta el Padre con quien vive esta Maestra, pueden ser preguntados si es o no verdad lo que acusa.’Esta hipocrita Srita.’ de mi empleo, y ya que de el no soy digno.

"No quiero arrebatarle mas tiempo, Sr. Director, y mucho mas porque este asunto ya se halla en manos del Juzgado. Pues ya alla manifestare todas mis razones; y por ahora basta con lo que tengo dicho, para recobrar un poco de mi honra perdida, en un articulo publicado en el Ang Suga, en un numero del 3 de Julio proximo pasado; y le repito se sirva publicar el presente en su periodico. Fortunato Ricamora, Presidente de Dumanjug."cralaw virtua1aw library

This article was written by the defendant, and sent by him to the newspaper in question. Judgment was rendered by the court below in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 1,200 Mexican pesos. The defendant move for a new trial. That motion was denied by the court below. He excepted to this order of the court, and also to the judgment and has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.

Section 1 of Act No. 227 of the commission declares that every writing is libelous which exposes a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. A simple reading of the article in question shows that it falls within this definition.

The appellant claims that the publication of the article was justified, because it appears in the case that about a month before it appeared, there was published in the same newspaper a statement that the defendant had arrested and detained the plaintiff for three days, and that the manager of the paper had written to the defendant telling him that he ought that this statement ought to be answered. These facts did not justify the defendant in libeling the plaintiff.

The fifth finding of fact of the court below is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"5. � Esta probado que la demandante ganaba como maestra treinta pesos al mes y que ha perdido su empleo por causa de dicho libelo, tanto por la publicidad de su poblicacion, como por los sufrimientos fisicos y morales, que la han sido ocasionados, privandola de la aptitud fisica necesaria para dedicarse a su profesion."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that after the publication of this article the plaintiff was discharged from her employment as a school teacher by the superintendent in charge. We think that the evidence sufficiently supports this finding of fact.

The appellant also alleges that there was no proof of the damages which the plaintiff had suffered by reason of the publication of the article. Section 11 of said Act No 277 provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"And the person so libeled shall be entitled to recover in such civil action not only the actual pecuniary damages sustained by him, but also the damages for injury to his feelings and reputation, and in addition such punitive damages as the court may think will be a just punishment to the libeler and an example to others."cralaw virtua1aw library

The evidence in this case was ample to show that the plaintiff had suffered such damages as are preferred to in this action, and the amount found by the court below.

The judgment of the court below was for 1,200 Mexican pesos, and the judgment is modified so as to require the payment of the equivalent of that sum in Philippine currency. As so modified the judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith, and the case remanded to the inferior court for execution of said judgment.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1572 September 1, 1905 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. WIFE AND SON OF IGNACIO GORRICHO

    004 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. 2738 September 1, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MORO SARIHUL

    004 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA VALERA v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN

    004 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 1837 September 5, 1905 - ESTEBAN QUIROS v. D. M. CARMAN

    004 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 1889 September 5, 1906

    JOHN B. EARLY v. SY GIANG

    004 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 2027 September 5, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    004 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 1783 September 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO ARCEO

    004 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 1850 September 6, 1905 - NATIVIDAD AGUILAR v. PLACIDO LAZARO

    004 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 1884 September 7, 1905 - PRESENTACION INFANTE v. MANUEL T. FIGUERAS

    004 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 2078 September 7, 1905 - VICENTE BENEDICTO v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 2205 September 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENAVENTURA v. JUANA URBANO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 1875 September 9, 1905 - RUDOLPH WAHL v. DONALDSON SIM & CO.

    005 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 2026 September 13, 1905 - ALEJANDRO A. SANTOS v. ANGEL LIMUCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. 2122 September 13, 1905 - PEDRO T. ACOSTA v. DAVID FLOR

    005 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 2100 September 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 2028 September 16, 1905 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. HENRY M. JONES

    005 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 2036 September 18, 1905 - MARIA MANONA v. DIONISIO OBLERO

    005 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 2033 September 19, 1905 - RUFINA CAUSIN v. FORTUNATO RICAMORA

    005 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 2045 September 20, 1905 - ADRIANO MORTIGA v. VICENTE SERRA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 1746 September 21, 1905 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. JOSE GORORDO

    005 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 2275 September 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO DALASAY

    005 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 1890 September 22, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    005 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 2126 September 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SY VINCO

    005 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 2879 September 25, 1905 - EDWIN CASE v. METROPOLE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 1698 September 26, 1905 - JULIAN BORROMEO v. JOSE F. FRANCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 862 September 27, 1905 - JOSE VASQUEZ v. BENITO SANCHEZ

    005 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 2288 September 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX GARCIA

    005 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 2805 September 27, 1905 - MARIANO ANDRES v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 2781 September 28, 1905 - VICTOR LOPEZ v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 1913 September 29, 1905 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 2086 September 29, 1905 - P. ELADIO ALONSO v. MUNICIPALITY OF PLACER

    005 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 2366 September 29, 1905 - PATRICIA ABOLENCIA v. GUILLERMO MAAÑO

    005 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 1472 September 30, 1905 - E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES v. JACINTA LOPEZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY

    005 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 - FELIX BARCELONA v. DAVID J. BAKER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 87