ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 148816.September 10, 2001]

MONICA PUBLISHING CORP. et al. vs. FLORA S. BIRATA et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 10 2001.

G.R. No. 148816(Monica Publishing Corp., Allen Macasaet, Nicolas V. Quijano, Vladi Eduarte, Raquel Dawal, et al. vs. Flora S. Birata, Pieda S. Bufa, Ernesto Sinforoso, Leonara S. Bellen, Trinidad S. Baraquiel, Pilar S. Botalon, et al.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing and setting aside the trial court's dismissal of private respondents' action for damages declaring thusly:

Hence, it is then incorrect to say that the right to claim for damages arising from the libelous publication was extinguished by the death of Sinforoso.

Consequently, we are inclined to rule that the appellants have the legal capacity to sue appellees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the records of the case be remanded to the lower court and for said court to continue with the appropriate proceedings with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

The present controversy stemmed from an action for damages filed by private respondents against petitioners brought about by a reported and published article in the February 3, 1993 issue of petitioners' tabloid Abante Tonite.

The subject alleged libelous article, entitled "Inatake sa sobrang excitement BADING TODAS SA PAMBOBOSO", stated that a certain Orlando Sinforoso, brother of private respondents, was a gay/homosexual, peeping torn, used to engaged illicit relations with persons of the same sex, died of heart attack inside the Dynasty Theatre due to too much excitement brought about by peeping through at the men's comfort room.

In the course of the proceedings, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging that private respondents do not have the legal capacity to sue. The trial court granted the motion.

A subsequent motion or reconsideration having been denied, private respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals which rendered the above assailed reversal decision. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same prove to be unavailing.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

The sole issue in the case at bar is whether or not private respondents, as Sinforoso's legal heirs are possessed with legal capacity to sue for damages arising from the alleged libelous publication.

The Court finds no reversible error committed by the appellate court in ruling the above issue in the affirmative.

Pertinent to the case at bar is Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:

Definition of libel. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

It must be noted that the death of Sinforoso preceded the libelous publication. The right to claim damages arising from the libelous publication accrued after Sinforoso's death. What is noteworthy, " . . . is that the victim here includes . . . a deceased person who shall therefore be represented by his legal representatives in the action filed in his behalf" (Regalado, Flcrenz D., Criminal Law Conspectus, First Edition, pp. 639-640).

Also worth mentioning is the fact that unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, the legal heirs may commence an ordinary action arising out of a right belonging to the ancestor without the necessity of a provision and separate judicial declaration of their status as such, and without the necessity of appointing an executor or administrator ( O. M. Herrera , Remedial Law, Revised Edition, 1994, p. 263, citing Mendoza Vda. de Bonnevie vs. Cecilia Vda. de Pardo, 59 Phil. 486, 488; De Vera vs. Galauran, 67 Phil. 213).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE