G.R. No. 170341. July 05, 2017

G.R. No. 170341. July 05, 2017 is a decision 2017 made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

MANILA BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND RUTHER BATUIGAS VS. VICTOR A. DOMINGO AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63097

Samuel Martires

## Facts

On 20 December 1990, Batuigas wrote an article in his Bull's Eye column in Tempo titled "Crucial task for JoeCon's successor." The article dealt with the letter-complaint of the Waray employees of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Region VIII on the "[m]ismanagement, low moral[e], improper decorum, gross inefficiency, nepotism, etc." in the office. One of the public officials complained of was petitioner Regional Director Victor Domingo (Domingo) who was accused of dereliction of official duties, among others. The "JoeCon" referred to was the outgoing DTI Secretary, Jose Concepcion.

## Info

As will be discussed later, the RTC and the CA had misapprehended the facts when these courts concluded that Batuigas was guilty of libel, and that both he and the Manila Bulletin were liable for damages.

 Under our law, criminal libel is defined as 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. For an imputation to be libelous under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following requisites must be present:

* (a) it must be defamatory;
* (b) it must be malicious;
* (c) it must be given publicity; and
* (d) the victim must be identifiable.

 ***a) The 20 December 1990 article***

* Art. 354. Requirement for 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:
* A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
* 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.The article cannot be considered as defamatory because Batuigas had not ascribed to Domingo the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, or any act or omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit the latter.
* To JoeCon's successor, the chopping board is ready. All you need is a Muslim kris! Palakulin mo, Pare ko!
* A plain reading of the statements found by the CA as libelous cannot support a ruling that these were disparaging to Domingo or calculated to induce suspicion upon his person. In the statement "[t]hese national employees should be commended for bringing into the open this garbage that has piled [up] in their own backyard," Batuigas was merely commending the DTI employees who brought into the open their complaints which had already been made known to the CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman. It was a fair remark directed to the DTI employees and made no reference to Domingo or imputed to him any defamatory allegation.

 ***b) The 4 January 1991 article***

* A privileged communication may be classified as either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged. The absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. This classification includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions as such, official communications made by public officers in the performance of their duties, and allegations or statements made by the parties or their counsel in their pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial proceedings, as well as the answers given by witnesses in reply to questions propounded to them, in the course of said proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive or pertinent to the questions propounded to said witnesses.
* The qualifiedly privileged communications are those which contain defamatory imputations but which are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive, and to which "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks" belong. Since the qualifiedly privileged communications are the exceptions to the general rule, these require proof of actual malice in order that a defamatory imputation may be held actionable.[90] But when malice in fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous articles are qualifiedly privileged communications are futile, since being qualifiedly privileged communications merely prevents the presumption of malice from attaching to a defamatory imputation.
* In Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, the Court explained "actual malice" as follows: There is "actual malice" or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice.
* Domingo admitted that he had drafted a letter to Batuigas protesting the inaccuracies in the 20 December 1990 article. Unfortunately, Domingo eventually changed his mind and did not send his letter to Batuigas as this could have informed Batuigas that the charges against him (Domingo) had already been dismissed by the CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman; thus, not having known of the dismissal of the complaints against Domingo, Batuigas could not have mentioned it in his 4 January 1991 article.
* Domingo, who had the burden of proving actual malice, was not able to present proof that Batuigas had entertained awareness as to the probable falsehood of the complaints against him (Domingo). Indeed, on the basis of the documents in Batuigas' possession, which were actually complaints against Domingo, Batuigas wrote his comments on Domingo's "lousy performance" and "mismanagement."
* For sure, the words "lousy performance" and "mismanagement" had caused hurt or embarrassment to Domingo and even to his family and friends, but it must be emphasized that hurt or embarrassment even if real, is not automatically equivalent to defamation; 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 bases for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages.
* To avoid the self-censorship that would necessarily accompany strict liability for erroneous statements, rules governing liability for injury to reputation are required to allow an adequate margin of error by protecting some inaccuracies. It is for the same reason that the New York Times doctrine requires that liability for defamation of a public official or public figure may not be imposed in the absence of proof of "actual malice" on the part of the person making the libelous statement.
* The 20 December 1990 article was not libelous because it was only a fair and true report by Batuigas using the documents received by him thus relieving him of criminal liability pursuant to Art. 354 (2) of the RPC.

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, premises considered, the 30 March 2005 decision and 25 October 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals, Eighteenth Division in CA-G.R. CR. No. 19089 are hereby **REVERSED** and **SET ASIDE**. Petitioner Ruther Batuigas is **ACQUITTED** of the charge against him in Criminal Case No. 91-03-159 while the complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 91-02-23 is dismissed.

## Trivia

* \*tempo
* \*manila bulletin
* \*libel
* \*defamation
* \*media