Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping

8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 1/49

G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975DELFIN LIM and JIKIL TAA, !"a#nt#$s-a!!%""ants,&s.FRAN'I(') *)N'E DE LE)N AND)RLAND) MADDELA, d%+%ndants-a!!%""%%s.Ricardo L. Manalilig for plaintis-appellants.

Iñigo R. Peña for defendants-appellees. MARTIN, J.:

Appeal on a question of law from the decision

of the Court of First Instance of Palawan in Civil

Case No. 416, entitled !el"n #im and $i%il &aha

vs. Francisco Ponce de #eon and 'rlando

(addela, dismissin) the complaint of the

plainti*s and orderin) them to pa+ each of the

defendants ointl+ and severall+ the sum of

P-. /+ wa+ of actual dama)es0 P-. /+

wa+ of attorne+s fees0 and P1,. /+ wa+

of e2emplar+ dama)es.

'n April 3, 161, plainti*5appellant $i%il &aha

sold to a certain Al/erto &im/an)ca+a of

roo%es Point, Palawan a motor launch named

(7# 8AN 9AFA:#. A +ear later or on April ,

163 Al/erto &im/an)ca+a "led a complaint

with the ';ce of the Provincial Fiscal of

Palawan alle)in) that after the sale $i%il &aha

forci/l+ too% awa+ the motor launch from him.

'n (a+ 14, 163, after conductin) apreliminar+ investi)ation, Fiscal Francisco

Ponce de #eon in his capacit+ as Actin)

Provincial Fiscal of Palawan, "led with the Court

of First Instance of Palawan the correspondin)

information for 9o//er+ the Force and

Intimidation upon Persons a)ainst $i%il &aha.

&he case was doc%eted as Criminal Case No.

3<1.

'n $une 1-, 163, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de

#eon, upon /ein) informed that the motorlaunch was in ala/ac, Palawan, wrote the

Provincial Commander of Palawan requestin)

him to direct the detachment commander5in

ala/ac to impound and ta%e custod+ of the

motor launch. 1

'n $une 36, 163, Fiscal Ponce de #eon

reiterated his request to the Provincial

Commander to impound the motor launch,

e2plainin) that its su/sequent sale to a thirdpart+, plainti*5appellant !el"n #im, cannot

prevent the court from ta%in) custod+ of the

same. 2 8o, on $ul+ 6, 163 upon order of the

Provincial Commander, defendant5appellee

'rlando (addela, !etachment Commander of

ala/ac, Palawan, sei=ed the motor launch

8AN 9AFA:# from plainti*5appellant !el"n

#im and impounded it.

'n $ul+ 1-, 163 plainti*5appellant !el"n #im

pleaded with 'rlando (addela to return themotor launch /ut the latter refused. #i%ewise,

on 8eptem/er 3, 163, $i%il &aha throu)h his

counsel made representations with Fiscal Ponce

de #eon to return the sei=ed propert+ to

plainti*5appellant !el"n #im /ut Fiscal Ponce

de #eon refused, on the )round that the same

was the su/ect of a criminal o*ense.

All e*orts to recover the motor launch )oin) to

nau)ht, plainti*s5appellants !el"n #im and $i%il

&aha, on Novem/er 1, 163, "led with the

Court of First Instance of Palawan a complaint

for dama)es a)ainst defendants5appellees

Fiscal Francisco Ponce de #eon and 'rlando

(addela, alle)in) that on $ul+ 6, 163 'rlando

(addela entered the premises of !el"n #im

without a search warrant and then and there

too% awa+ the hull of the motor launch without

his consent0 that he e*ected the sei=ure upon

order of Fiscal Ponce de #eon who %new full+

well that his o;ce was not vested with

authorit+ to order the sei=ure of a private

propert+0 that said motor launch waspurchased /+ !el"n #im from $i%il &aha in

consideration of &hree &housand Pesos

>P?,.@, &wo &housand Pesos >P3,.@

of which has /een )iven to $i%il &aha as

advance pa+ment0 that as a consequence of

the unlawful sei=ure of the motor launch, its

sale did not materiali=e0 and that since $ul+ 6,

163, the said motor launch had /een moored

at the ala/ac a+, Palawan and /ecause of

e2posure to the elements it had /ecomeworthless and /e+ond repair. For the alle)ed

violation of their constitutional ri)hts, plainti*s5

appellants pra+ed that defendants5appellees

/e ordered to pa+ ointl+ and severall+ each of

them the sum of P-,<-. representin)

actual, moral and e2emplar+ dama)es and

attorne+s fees.

In their answer, defendants5appellees denied

the material alle)ations of the complaint and

as a;rmative defenses alle)ed that the motor

launch in question which was sold /+ $i%il &aha

to Al/erto &im/an)ca+a on April 3, 161 was

sometime in April 163, forci/l+ ta%en with

violence upon persons and with intent to )ain

/+ $i%il &aha from Alfredo &im/an)ca+a without

the latters %nowled)e and consent, thus )ivin)

rise to the "lin) of a criminal char)e of ro//er+

a)ainst $i%il &aha0 that Fiscal Ponce de #eon, in

his capacit+ as Actin) Provincial Fiscal of

Palawan ordered 'rlando (addela to sei=e and

impound the motor launch 8AN 9AFA:#, for

/ein) thecorpus delicti of the ro//er+0 and that'rlando (addela merel+ o/e+ed the orders of

his superior o;cer to impound said launch. +

wa+ of counterclaim, defendants5appellees

alle)ed that /ecause of the malicious and

)roundless "lin) of the complaint /+ plainti*s5

appellants, the+ were constrained to en)a)e

the services of law+ers, each of them pa+in)

P-. as attorne+s fees0 and that the+

su*ered moral dama)es in the amount of

P-,. each and actual dama)es in the

amount of P-. each. &he+ also pra+ed that



each of them awarded e2emplar+ dama)es in

the amount of P1,..

'n 8eptem/er 1?, 16-, the trial court

rendered its decision, upholdin) the validit+ of

the sei=ure of the motor launch on the )round

that the authorit+ to impound evidences or

e2hi/its or corpus delicti in a case pendin)

investi)ation is inherent in the Provincial Fiscalwho controls the prosecution and who

introduces those e2hi/its in the court.

Accordin)l+, the trial court dismissed the

complaint of plainti*s5appellants and ordered

them to pa+ ointl+ and severall+ each of the

defendants5appellees the amount of P-.

/+ wa+ of actual dama)es another amount of

P-. for attorne+s fees and P1,. as

e2emplar+ dama)es.

ence, this appeal.

&wo vital issues call for resolution /+ this Court.

First, whether or not defendant5appellee Fiscal

Ponce de #eon had the power to order the

sei=ure of the motor launch in question without

a warrant of search and sei=ure even if the

same was admittedl+ the corpus delicti of the

crime. 8econd, whether or not defendants5

appellees are civill+ lia/le to plainti*s5

appellants for dama)es alle)edl+ su*ered /+

them )rantin) that the sei=ure of the motor

launch was unlawful.

&he )ravamen of plainti*s5appellants

ar)ument is that the ta%in) of the motor launch

on $ul+ 6, 163 /+ 'rlando (addela upon the

order of Fiscal Ponce de #oon was in violation of

the constitutional )uarantee a)ainst

unreasona/le searches and sei=ures since it

was done without a warrant.

&he pertinent provision of the Constitution then

in force readsB

?@ &he ri)ht of the people to /e secure in their

persons, houses, papers and e*ects a)ainst

unreasona/le searches and sei=ures shall not

/e violated, and no warrants shall issue /ut

upon pro/a/le cause, to /e determined /+ the

ud)e after e2amination under oath or

a;rmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he ma+ produce, and particularl+

descri/in) the place to /e searched, and thepersons or thin)s to /e sei=ed.

A cursor+ readin) of the a/ove provision easil+

/rin)s into focus the unreasona/leness of the

sei=ure of the aforementioned motor launch. A

search and sei=ure to /e reasona/le, must /e

e*ected /+ means of a valid search warrant.

And for a search warrant to /e validB >1@ it must

/e issued upon pro/a/le cause0 >3@ the

pro/a/le cause must /e determined /+ the

ud)e himself and not /+ the applicant or an+

other person0 >?@ in the determination of

pro/a/le cause, the ud)e must e2amine,

under oath or a;rmation, the complainant and

such witnesses as the latter ma+ produce0 and

>4@ the warrant issued must particularl+

descri/e the place to /e searched and persons

or thin)s to /e sei=ed. 4

&hus in a lon) line of

decisions, this Court has declared invalid

search warrants which were issued in utter

disre)ard of the constitutional inunction. 5

!efendants5appellees admitted that when'rlando (addela entered the premises of

!el"n #im and impounded the motor launch he

was not armed with a search warrant0 that he

e*ected the sei=ure of the motor launch in the

a/sence of and without the consent of !el"n

#im. &here can /e no question that without the

proper search warrant, no pu/lic o;cial has the

ri)ht to enter the premises of another without

his consent for the purpose of search and

sei=ure. And since in the present case

defendants5appellees sei=ed the motor launchwithout a warrant, the+ have violated the

constitutional ri)ht of plainti*s5appellants

a)ainst unreasona/le search and sei=ure.

!efendants5appellees however would want to

ustif+ the sei=ure of the motor launch even

without a warrant /ecause of Fiscal Ponce de

#eons alle)ed inherent power to order the

sei=ure of a personal propert+ which is

thecorpus delicti of a crime, he /ein)a quasi udicial o;cer who has the control of

the prosecution and the presentation of the

evidence in the criminal case. &he+ ar)ue that

inasmuch as the motor launch in question was

al le)edl+ stolen /+ $i%il &aha from

&im/an)ca+a, Fiscal Ponce de #eon could order

its sei=ure even without a search warrant. e

cannot a)ree. Dnder the old Constitution 7 the

power to issue a search warrant is vested in a

ud)e or ma)istrate and in no other o;cer and

no search and sei=ure can /e made without a

proper warrant. At the time the act complained

of was committed, there was no law or rule

that reco)ni=ed the authorit+ of Provincial

Fiscals to issue a search warrant. In his vain

attempt to ustif+ the sei=ure of the motor

launch in question without a warrant Fiscal

Ponce de #eon invo%ed the provisions of

9epu/lic Act No. <?3, which amended 8ections

16<4 and 16E< of the 9evised Administrative

Code. ut there is nothin) in said law which

confers upon the provincial "scal0 the authorit+

to issue warrants, much less to order withoutwarrant the sei=ure of a personal propert+ even

if it is the corpus delicti of a crime. &rue,

9epu/lic Act No. <?3 has /roadened the power

of provincial "scals to conduct preliminar+

investi)ations, /ut said law did not divest the

ud)e or ma)istrate of its power to determine,

/efore issuin) the correspondin) warrant,

whether or not pro/a/le cause e2ists therefor.

(oreover, under 8ections 3 and ? of 9ule 133

of the 9ules of Court 9 which complement theconstitutional provision earlier cited, two



principles are made clear, namel+B >1@ that in

the sei=ure of a stolen propert+ search warrant

is still necessar+0 and >3@ that in issuin) a

search warrant the ud)e alone determines

whether or not there is a pro/a/le cause. &he

fact that a thin) is a corpus delicti of a crime

does not ustif+ its sei=ure without a warrant.

As held in U.S. v. de los

Reyes and Esguerra,1/

citin) McClurg v.BrentonB 11

&he mere fact that a man is an o;cer, whether

of hi)h or low de)ree, )ives him no more ri)ht

than is possessed /+ the ordinar+ private

citi=en to /rea% in upon the privac+ of a home

and su/ect its occupant to the indi)nit+ of a

search for the evidence of crime, without a

le)al warrant procured for that purpose. No

amount of incriminating evidence whatever its

source will supply the place of such warrant .

At the closed door of the home /e it palace or

hovel even /loodhounds must wait till the law,

/+ authoritative process, /ids it open.

>:mphasis supplied.@

!efendant5appellee Fiscal Ponce de #eon would

also invo%e lac% of time to procure a search

warrant as an e2cuse for the sei=ure of the

motor launch without one. e claimed that the

motor launch had to /e sei=ed immediatel+ in

order to preserve it and to prevent its removal

out of the localit+, since ala/ac, Palawan,where the motor launch was at the time, could

onl+ /e reached after three to four da+s travel

/+ /oat. 12 &he claim cannot /e sustained. &he

records show that on $une 1-, 163 1

Fiscal

Ponce de #eon made the "rst request to the

Provincial Commander for the impoundin) of

the motor launch0 and on $une 36,

163 14 another request was made. &he sei=ure

was not e*ected until $ul+ 6, 163. In short,

Fiscal Ponce de #eon had all the time to

procure a search warrant had he wanted to and

which he could have ta%en in less than a da+,

/ut he did not. esides, there is no /asis for

the apprehension that the motor launch mi)ht

/e moved out of ala/ac /ecause even prior to

its sei=ure the motor launch was alread+

without its en)ine. 15

In sum, the fact that there

was no time to secure a search warrant would

not le)all+ ustif+ a search without one. 1

As to whether or not the+ are entitled todama)es, plainti*s5appellants anchor their

claim for dama)es on Articles ?3 and 331 of

the New Civil Code which provide in part as

followsB

A9&. ?3. An+ pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee, or an+

private individual, who directl+ or indirectl+

o/structs, defeats, violates or in an+ manner

impedes or impairs an+ of the followin) ri)hts

and li/erties of another person shall /e lia/le

to the latter for dama)es.

>@ &he ri)hts to /e secure in ones person,

house, papers, and e*ects a)ainst

unreasona/le searches and sei=ures.

&he indemnit+ shall include moral dama)es.

:2emplar+ dama)es ma+ also /e adudicated.

A9&. 331. (oral dama)es ma+ /e recovered in

the followin) and analo)ous cases

>6@ Ille)al search0

>1@ Acts and action referred to in Articles 31,

36, 3<, 3E, 3, ?, ?3, ?4 and ?-.

Pursuant to the fore)oin) provisions, a person

whose constitutional ri)hts have /een violated

or impaired is entitled to actual and moral

dama)es from the pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee

responsi/le therefor. In addition, e2emplar+

dama)es ma+ also /e awarded. In the instant

case, plainti*5appellant !el"n #im claimed that

he purchased the motor launch from $i%il &aha

in consideration of P?,., havin) )iven

P3,. as advanced pa+ment0 that since or

sei=ure on $ul+ 6, 163 the motor launch had

/een moored at ala/ac a+ and /ecause of

e2posure to the elements it has /ecome

worthless at the time of the "lin) of the

present action0 that /ecause of the ille)alit+ of

the sei=ure of the motor launch, he su*eredmoral dama)es in the sum of P1,.0 and

that /ecause of the violation of their

constitutional ri)hts the+ were constrained to

en)a)e the services of a law+er whom the+

have paid P1,-. for attorne+s fees. e

"nd these claims of !el"n #im ampl+ supported

/+ the evidence and therefore should /e

awarded the sum of P?,. as actual

dama)es0 P1,. as moral dama)es and

P<-. for attorne+s fees. owever, with

respect co plainti* $i%il &aha, he is not entitled

to recover an+ dama)e which he alle)ed he

had su*ered from the unlawful sei=ure of the

motor launch inasmuch as he had alread+

transferred the ownership and possession of

the motor launch to !el"n #im at the time it

was sei=ed and therefore, he has no le)al

standin) to question the validit+ of the sei=ure.

ell settled is the rule that the le)alit+ of a

sei=ure can /e contested onl+ /+ the part+

whose ri)hts have /een impaired there/+, and

that the o/ection to an unlawful search and

sei=ure is purel+ personal and cannot /eavailed of /+ third parties. 17Consequentl+, one

who is not the owner, lessee, or lawful

occupant of the premise searched cannot raise

the question of validit+ of the search and

sei=ure. 1 $i%il &aha is not without recourse

thou)h. e can still collect from his co5plainti*,

!el"n #im the unpaid /alance of P1,..

!efendant5appellee Fiscal Ponce de #eon

wanted to wash his hands of the incident /+

claimin) that he was in )ood faith, without

malice and without the sli)htest intention of



inictin) inur+ to plainti*5appellant, $i%il

&aha 19when he ordered the sei=ure of the

motor launch. e are not prepared to sustain

his defense of )ood faith. &o /e lia/le under

Article ?3 of the New Civil Code it is enou)h

that there was a violation of the constitutional

ri)hts of the plainti*s and it is not required that

defendants should have acted with malice or

/ad faith. !r. $or)e oco/o, Chairman of theCode Commission, )ave the followin) reasons

durin) the pu/lic hearin)s of the $oint 8enate

and ouse Committees, wh+ )ood faith on the

part of the pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee is

immaterial. &husB

!:AN 'C''. Article ?3, re)ardin) individual

ri)hts0 Attorne+ Cirilo Paredes proposes that

Article ?3 /e so amended as to ma%e a pu/lic

o;cial lia/le for violation of another persons

constitutional ri)hts onl+ if the pu/lic o;cial

acted maliciousl+ or in /ad faith. &he Code

Commission opposes this su))estion for these

reasonsB

&he ver+ nature of Article ?3 is that the wron)

ma+ /e civil or criminal. It is not necessar+

therefore that there should /e malice or /ad

faith. &o ma%e such a requisite would defeat

the main purpose of Article ?3 which is the

e*ective protection of individual ri)hts. Pu/lic

o;cials in the past have a/used their powers

on the prete2t of usti"a/le motives or )oodfaith in the performance of their duties.

Precisel+, the o/ect of the Article is to put an

end to o;cial a/use /+ the plea of )ood faith.

In the Dnited 8tates this remed+ is in he nature

of a tort.

(r. Chairman, this article is "rml+ one of the

fundamental articles introduced in the New

Civil Code to implement democrac+. &here is no

real democrac+ if a pu/lic o;cial is a/usin),

and we made the article so stron) and socomprehensive that it concludes an a/use of

individual ri)hts even if done in )ood faith, that

o;cial is lia/le. As a matter of fact, we %now

that there are ver+ few pu/lic o;cials who

openl+ and de"nitel+ a/use the individual

ri)hts of the citi=ens. In most cases, the a/use

is usti"ed on a plea of desire to enforce the

law to compl+ with ones dut+. And so, if we

should limit the scope of this article, that would

practicall+ nullif+ the o/ect of the article.Precisel+, the openin) o/ect of the article is to

put an end to a/uses which are usti"ed /+ a

plea of )ood faith, which is in most cases the

plea of o;cials a/usin) individual ri)hts. 2/

ut defendant5appellee 'rlando (addela

cannot /e held accounta/le /ecause he

impounded the motor launch upon the order of

his superior o;cer. hile a su/ordinate o;cer

ma+ /e held lia/le for e2ecutin) unlawful

orders of his superior o;cer, there are certain

circumstances which would warrant (addelas

e2culpation from lia/ilit+. &he records show

that after Fiscal Ponce de #eon made his "rst

request to the Provincial Commander on $une

1-, 163 (addela was reluctant to impound

the motor launch despite repeated orders from

his superior o;cer.21 It was onl+ after he was

furnished a cop+ of the repl+ of Fiscal Ponce de

#eon, dated $une 36, 163, to the letter of the

Provincial Commander, ustif+in) the necessit+

of the sei=ure of the motor launch on the

)round that the su/sequent sale of the launchto !el"n #im could not prevent the court from

ta%in) custod+ of the same, 22 that he

impounded the motor launch on $ul+ 6, 163.

ith said letter comin) from the le)al o;cer of

the province, (addela was led to /elieve that

there was a le)al /asis and authorit+ to

impound the launch. &hen came the order of

his superior o;cer to e2plain for the dela+ in

the sei=ure of the motor launch. 2 Faced with a

possi/le disciplinar+ action from his

Commander, (addela was left with no

alternative /ut to sei=e the vessel. In the li)ht

of the a/ove circumstances. e are not

disposed to hold (addela answera/le for

dama)es.

IN GI: 'F &: F'9:H'INH, the decision

appealed from is here/+ reversed and another

one entered declarin) the sei=ure ille)al and

orderin) defendant5appellee Fiscal Francisco

Ponce de #eon to pa+ to plainti*5appellant!el"n #im the sum of P?,. as actual

dama)es, plus P1,. moral dama)es, and,

in addition, P<-. for attorne+s fees. ith

costs a)ainst defendant5appellee Fiscal Ponce

de #eon.

8' '9!:9:!.



G.R. No. L-9 A!0#" 15, 19

R)GELI) AER'A, R)D)LF) EN)(A,NE(T)R )DIN) N)EL ETAAG DANIL) DELA FENTE, ELEN DIA3-FL)RE(, MANELMARI) G3MAN, ALAN JA3MINE3, EDINL)*E3, ALFRED) MAN()(, ALEMAR'ELIN), ELI3AET *R)TA'I)-

MAR'ELIN), J)(E* )LA6ER, 'ARL)(*ALMA, MAR') *AL), R)LAND) (ALTIN,ENJAMIN (E(GND), ARTR) TAARA,EDIN TLALIAN and REE''ATLALIAN petitioners,

vs.

MAJ. GEN. FAIAN ER, ')L. FIDEL(ING()N, ')L. R)LAND) AADILLA, ')L.GERARD) . LANT)RIA, ')L. GALILE)KINTANAR, 1(T LT. ')L. *ANFIL) M.LA'()N, MAJ. R)D)LF) AGINALD),'A*T. DANIL) *I3ARR), 1(T LT. *EDR)TANG), 1(T LT. R)ME) RI'ARD), 1(T LT.RAL A'AL(), M(GT IENENID)ALAA and REGI)NAL TRIAL ')RT,Nat#ona" 'a!#ta" Jud#8#a" R%g#on, 0an8' :95;, <u%=on '#t>, respondents.

6A*, J.:

&his petition for certiorari presents vital issues

not heretofore passed upon /+ this Court. It

poses the question whether the suspension of

the privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus /arsa civil action for dama)es for ille)al searches

conducted /+ militar+ personnel and other

violations of ri)hts and li/erties )uaranteed

under the Constitution. If such action for

dama)es ma+ /e maintained, who can /e held

lia/le for such violationsB onl+ the militar+

personnel directl+ involved and7or their

superiors as well.

&his case stems from alle)ed ille)al searches

and sei=ures and other violations of the ri)htsand li/erties of plainti*s /+ various intelli)ence

units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,

%nown as &as% Force (a%a/ansa >&F(@ ordered

/+ Heneral Fa/ian Ger to conduct pre5emptive

stri%es a)ainst %nown communist5terrorist >C&@

under)round houses in view of increasin)

reports a/out C& plans to sow distur/ances in

(etro (anila, Plainti*s alle)e, amon) others,

that compl+in) with said order, elements of the

&F( raided several places, emplo+in) in mostcases defectivel+ issued udicial search

warrants0 that durin) these raids, certain

mem/ers of the raidin) part+ con"scated a

num/er of purel+ personal items /elon)in) to

plainti*s0 that plainti*s were arrested without

proper warrants issued /+ the courts0 that for

some period after their arrest, the+ were

denied visits of relatives and law+ers0 that

plainti*s were interro)ated in violation of their

ri)hts to silence and counsel0 that militar+ men

who interro)ated them emplo+ed threats,

tortures and other forms of violence on them in

order to o/tain incriminator+ information or

confessions and in order to punish them0 that

all violations of plainti*s constitutional ri)hts

were part of a concerted and deli/erate plan to

forci/l+ e2tract information and incriminator+

statements from plainti*s and to terrori=e,

harass and punish them, said plans /ein)

previousl+ %nown to and sanctioned /+

defendants.

Plainti*s sou)ht actual7compensator+ dama)esamountin) to P?,?.0 moral dama)es in

the amount of at least P1-,. each or a

total of P?,,.0 e2emplar+ dama)es in

the amount of at least P1-,. each or a

total of P?,,.0 and attorne+s fees

amountin) to not less than P3,..

A motion to dismiss was "led /+ defendants,

throu)h their counsel, then 8olicitor5Heneral

:stelito (endo=a, alle)in) that >1@ plainti*s

ma+ not cause a udicial inquir+ into the

circumstances of their detention in the )uise of

a dama)e suit /ecause, as to them, the

privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus is

suspended0 >3@ assumin) that the courts can

entertain the present action, defendants are

immune from lia/ilit+ for acts done in the

performance of their o;cial duties0 and >?@ the

complaint states no cause of action a)ainst the

defendants. 'pposition to said motion to

dismiss was "led /+ plainti*s (arco Palo,!anilo de la Fuente, enamin 8es)undo, Nel

:ta/a), Alfredo (ansos and 9olando 8alutin on

$ul+ E, 1E?, and /+ plainti*s :dwin #ope=,

(anuel (ario Hu=man, Alan $asmine=, Nestor

odino, Carlos Palma, Arturo &a/ara, $oseph

'la+er, 9odolfo enosa, elen !ia=, Flores,

9o)elio A/erca, Ale2 (arcelino and :li=a/eth

(arcelino on $ul+ 31, 1E?. 'n Novem/er <,

1E?, a Consolidated 9epl+ was "led /+

defendants counsel.

&hen, on Novem/er E, 1E?, the 9e)ional &rial

Court, National Capital 9e)ion, ranch -,

$ud)e illelmo C. Fortun, Presidin), 1 issued a

resolution )rantin) the motion to dismiss. I

sustained, loc%, stoc% and /arrel, the

defendants contention >1@ the plainti*s ma+

not cause a udicial inquir+ into the

circumstances of their detention in the )uise of

a dama)e suit /ecause, as to them, the

privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus is

suspended0 >3@ that assumin) that the court

can entertain the present action, defendantsare immune from lia/ilit+ for acts done in the

performance of their o;cial duties0 and >?@ that

the complaint states no cause of action a)ainst

defendants, since there is no alle)ation that

the defendants named in the complaint

con"scated plainti*s purel+ personal

properties in violation of their constitutional

ri)hts, and with the possi/le e2ception of (aor

9odolfo A)uinaldo and 8er)eant ienvenido

ala/o committed acts of torture and

maltreatment, or that the defendants had the

dut+ to e2ercise direct supervision and control



of their su/ordinates or that the+ had vicarious

lia/ilit+ as emplo+ers under Article 31E of the

Civil Code. &he lower court stated, After a

careful stud+ of defendants ar)uments, the

court "nds the same to /e meritorious and

must, therefore, /e )ranted. 'n the other

hand, plainti*s ar)uments in their opposition

are lac%in) in merit.

A motion to set aside the order dismissin) the

complaint and a supplemental motion for

reconsideration was "led /+ the plainti*s on

Novem/er 1E, 1E?, and Novem/er 34, 1E?,

respectivel+. 'n !ecem/er , 1E?, the

defendants "led a comment on the aforesaid

motion of plainti*s, furnishin) a cop+ thereof to

the attorne+s of all the plainti*s, namel+, Att+s.

$ose . !io%no, Procopio eltran, 9ene

8armiento, :fren (ercado, Au)uso 8anche=,

Antonio #. 9osales, Pedro . :lla $r., Arno G.

8anidad, Ale2ander Padilla, $o%er Arro+o, 9ene

8a)uisa), 9amon :s)uerra and Felicitas

Aquino.

'n !ecem/er 1-, 1E?, $ud)e Fortun issued an

order voluntaril+ inhi/itin) himself from further

proceedin) in the case and leavin) the

resolution of the motion to set aside the order

of dismissal to $ud)e #isin), to preclude an+

suspicion that he >$ud)e Fortun@ cannot resolve

theJ aforesaid pendin) motion with the cold

neutralit+ of an impartial ud)e and to put anend to plainti*s assertion that the undersi)ned

has no authorit+ or urisdiction to resolve said

pendin) motion. &his order prompted plainti*s

to reesolve an ampli"cator+ motion for

reconsideration si)ned in the name of the Free

#e)al Assistance Hroup >F#AH@ of (a/ini #e)al

Aid Committee, /+ Att+s. $o%er P. Arro+o,

Felicitas Aquino and Arno 8anidad on April 13,

1E4. 'n (a+ 3,1E4, the defendants "led a

comment on said ampli"cator+ motion for

reconsideration.

In an order dated (a+ 11, 1E4, the trial court,

$ud)e :ste/an #isin), Presidin), without actin)

on the motion to set aside order of Novem/er

E, 1E?, issued an order, as followsB

It appearin) from the records that, indeed, the

followin) plainti*s, 9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de la

Fuente and (arco Palo, represented /+

counsel, Att+. $ose . !io%no, Alan $asmine=represented /+ counsel, Att+. Au)usta 8anche=,

8pouses Ale2 (arcelino and :li=a/eth Protacio5

(arcelino, represented /+ counsel, Att+.

Procopio eltran, Alfredo (ansos represented

/+ counsel, Att+. 9ene 8armiento, and 9olando

8alutin, represented /+ counsel, Att+. :fren

(ercado, failed to "le a motion to reconsider

the 'rder of Novem/er E, 1E?, dismissin) the

complaint, nor interposed an appeal therefrom

within the re)lementar+ period, as pra+ed for

/+ the defendants, said 'rder is now "nal

a)ainst said plainti*s.

Assailin) the said order of (a+ 11, 1E4, the

plainti*s "led a motion for reconsideration on

(a+ 3E,1E4, alle)in) that it was not true that

plainti*s 9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de la Fuente,

(arco Palo, Alan $asmine=, Ale2 (arcelino,

:li=a/eth Protacio5(arcelino, Alfredo (ansos

and 9olando 8alutin failed to "le a motion to

reconsider the order of Novem/er E, 1E?

dismissin) the complaint, within the

re)lementar+ period. Plainti*s claimed that themotion to set aside the order of Novem/er E,

1E? and the ampli"cator+ motion for

reconsideration was "led for all the plainti*s,

althou)h si)ned /+ onl+ some of the law+ers.

In its resolution of 8eptem/er 31, 1E4, the

respondent court dealt with /oth motions >1@ to

reconsider its order of (a+ 11, 1E4 declarin)

that with respect to certain plainti*s, the

resolution of Novem/er E, 1E? had alread+

/ecome "nal, and >3@ to set aside its resolutionof Novem/er E, 1E? )rantin) the defendants

motion to dismiss. In the dispositive portion of

the order of 8eptem/er 31, 1E4, the

respondent court resolvedB

>1@ &hat the motion to set aside the order of

"nalit+, dated (a+ 11, 1E4, of the 9esolution

of dismissal of the complaint of plainti*s

9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de la Fuente, (arco

Palo, Alan $asmine= Ale2 (arcelino, :li=a/ethProtacio5(arcelino, Alfredo (ansos and

9olando 8alutin is deed for lac% of merit0K

>3@ For lac% of cause of action as a)ainst the

followin) defendants, to witB

1. Hen Fa/ian Ger

3. Col. Fidel 8in)son

?. Col. 9olando A/adilla

4. #t. Col. Conrado #antoria, $r.

-. Col. Halileo (ontanar

6. Col. Pan"lo #acson

<. Capt. !anilo Pi=aro

E. 1 #t Pedro &an)o

. #t. 9omeo 9icardo

1. #t. 9aul acalso

the motion to set aside and reconsider the

9esolution of dismissal of the present action or

complaint, dated Novem/er E, 1E?, is also

denied /ut in so far as it a*ects and refers to

defendants, to witB

1. (aor 9odolfo A)uinaldo, and



3. (aster 8)t. ienvenido ala/a

the motion to reconsider and set aside the

9esolution of dismissal dated Novem/er ?,

1E? is )ranted and the 9esolution of dismissal

is, in this respect, reconsidered and modi"ed.

ence, petitioners "led the instant petition for

certiorari on (arch 1-, 1E- see%in) to annuland set aside the respondent courts resolution

of Novem/er E, 1E?, its order of (a+ 11,

1E4, and its resolution dated 8eptem/er 31,

1E4. 9espondents were required to comment

on the petition, which it did on Novem/er ,

1E-. A repl+ was "led /+ petitioners on

Au)ust 36, 1E6.

e "nd the petition meritorious and decide to

)ive it due course.

At the heart of petitioners complaint is Article

?3 of the Civil Code which providesB

A9&. ?3. An+ pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee, or an+

private individual who directl+ or indirectl+

o/structs, defeats, violates or in an+ manner

impedes or impairs an+ of the followin) ri)hts

and li/erties of another person shall /e lia/le

to the latter for dama)esB

>1@ Freedom of reli)ion0

>3@ Freedom of speech0

>?@ Freedom to write for the press or to

maintain a periodical pu/lication0

>4@ Freedom from ar/itrar+ or ille)al detention0

>-@ Freedom of su*ra)e0

>6@ &he ri)ht a)ainst deprivation of propert+without due process

><@ of law0

>E@ &he ri)ht to a ust compensation when

private propert+ is ta%en for pu/lic use0

>@ &he ri)ht to the equal protection of the

laws0

>1@ &he ri)ht to /e secure in ones person,


unreasona/le searches and sei=ures0

>11@ &he li/ert+ of a/ode and of chan)in) the

same0

>13@ &he privac+ of cmmunication and

correspondence0

>1?@ &he ri)ht to /ecome a mem/er of

associations or societies for purposes not

contrar+ to law0

>14@ &he ri)ht to ta%e part in a peacea/le

assem/l+ to petition the Hovernment for

redress of )rievances0

>1-@ &he ri)ht to /e free from involuntar+

servitude in an+ form0

>16@ &he ri)th of the accused a)ainst e2cessive

/ail0

>1<@ &he ri)th of the aaccused to /e heard /+

himself and counsel, to /e informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation a)ainst

him, to have a speed+ and pu/lic trial, to meet

the witnesses face to face, and to have

compulsor+ process to secure the attendance

of witness in /ehalf0

>1E@ Freedom from /ein) compelled to /e a

witness a)ainst ones self, or from /ein) forcedto confess )uilt, or from /ein) induced /+ a

promise of immunit+ or reward to ma%e such

confession, e2cept when the person confessin)

/ecomes a 8tate witness0

>1@ Freedom from e2cessive "nes or cruel and

unusual punishment, unless the same is

imposed or inicted in accordance with a

statute which has not /een udiciall+ declared

unconstitutional0 and

>3@ Freedom of access to the courts.

In an+ of the cases referred to in this article,

whether or not the defendants act or omission

constitutes a criminal o*ense, the a)ainst

)rieved part+ has a ri)ht to commence an

entirel+ separate and distinct civil action for

dama)es, and for other relief. 8uch civil action

shall proceed independentl+ of an+ criminal

prosecution >if the latter /e instituted@, andma+ /e proved /+ a preponderance of

evidence.


:2emplar+ dama)es ma+ also /e adudicated.

&he responsi/ilit+ herein set forth is not

demanda/le from a ud)e unless his act or

omission constitutes a violation of the Penal

Code or other penal statute.

It is o/vious that the purpose of the a/ove

codal provision is to provide a sanction to the

deepl+ cherished ri)hts and freedoms

enshrined in the Constitution. Its messa)e is

clear0 no man ma+ see% to violate those sacred

ri)hts with impunit+. In times of )reat upheaval

or of social and political stress, when the

temptation is stron)est to +ield L /orrowin)

the words of Chief $ustice Claudio &eehan%ee L

to the law of force rather than the force of law,

it is necessar+ to remind ourselves that certain

/asic ri)hts and li/erties are immuta/le and



cannot /e sacri"ced to the transient needs or

imperious demands of the rulin) power. &he

rule of law must prevail, or else li/ert+ will

perish. 'ur commitment to democratic

principles and to the rule of law compels us to

reect the view which reduces law to nothin)

/ut the e2pression of the will of the

predominant power in the communit+.

!emocrac+ cannot /e a rei)n of pro)ress, of li/ert+, of ustice, unless the law is respected

/+ him who ma%es it and /+ him for whom it is

made. Now this respect implies a ma2imum of

faith, a minimum of Idealism. 'n )oin) to the

/ottom of the matter, we discover that life

demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment

which is not derived from reason, /ut which

reason nevertheless controls. 2

8ee%in) to ustif+ the dismissal of plainti*s

complaint, the respondents postulate the view

that as pu/lic o;cers the+ are covered /+ the

mantle of state immunit+ from suit for acts

done in the performance of o;cial duties or

function In support of said contention,

respondents maintain that L

9espondents are mem/ers of the Armed Forces

of the Philippines. &heir primar+ dut+ is to

safe)uard pu/lic safet+ and order. &he

Constitution no less provides that the President

ma+ call them to prevent or supress lawless

violence, invasion, insurrection or re/ellion, orimminent dan)er thereof. >Constitution, Article

GII, 8ection @.

'n $anuar+ 1<, 1E1, the President issued

Proclamation No. 34- liftin) martial law /ut

providin) for the continued suspension of the

privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus in view of

the remainin) dan)ers to the securit+ of the

nation. &he proclamation also provided that

the call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines

to prevent or suppress lawless violence,

insuitection re/ellion and su/version shall

continue to /e in force and e*ect.

Petitioners alle)e in their complaint that their

causes of action proceed from respondent

Heneral Gers order to &as% Force (a%a/ansa to

launch pre5emptive stri%es a)ainst communist

terrorist under)round houses in (etro (anila.

Petitioners claim that this order and itssu/sequent implementation /+ elements of the

tas% force resulted in the violation of their

constitutional ri)hts a)ainst unlawful searches,

sei=ures and arrest, ri)hts to counsel and to

silence, and the ri)ht to propert+ and that,

therefore, respondents Ger and the named

mem/ers of the tas% force should /e held lia/le

for dama)es.

ut, /+ launchin) a pre5emptive stri%e a)ainst

communist terrorists, respondent mem/ers of

the armed forces merel+ performed their

o;cial and constitutional duties. &o allow

petitioners to recover from respondents /+ wa+

of dama)es for acts performed in the e2ercise

of such duties run contrar+ to the polic+

considerations to shield respondents as pu/lic

o;cers from undue interference with their

duties and from potentiall+ disa/lin) threats of

ha/ilit+ >Aarlon v. Fit=)erald 13 8. Ct. 3<?151

For/es v. Chuoco &iaco, 16 Phil. 6?4@, and upon

the necessit+ of protectin) the performance of

)overnmental and pu/lic functions from /ein)harassed undul+ or constantl+ interrupted /+

private suits >(cCallan v. 8tate, ?- Cal. App.

6-0 (etran v. Paredes, < Phil. E1@.

&he immunit+ of pu/lic o;cers from lia/ilit+

arisin) from the performance of their duties is

now a settled urisprudence Al=ua v. $ohnson,

31 Phil. ?E0 Mulueta v. Nicolas, 13 Phil. 440

8paldin) v. Gilas, 161 D8 4E?0 4 #. :d. <E, 16

8. Ct. 6?10 arr v. (ateo, ?60 ut= v.

:conomon, 4?E D8 4<E0 -< #. :d. 3d E-, E 8.Ct. 3E40 8cheuer v. 9hodes, 416 D8 3?30

For/es v. Chuoco &iaco, supra0 (iller v. de

#eune, 63 F. 3d 1E0 8ami v. D8, 61< F. 3d

<--@.

9espondents5defendants who merel+ o/e+ed

the lawful orders of the President and his call

for the suppression of the re/ellion involvin)

petitioners eno+ such immunit+ from 8uit.

e "nd respondents invocation of the doctrine

of state immunit+ from suit totall+ misplaced.

&he cases invo%ed /+ respondents actuall+

involved acts done /+ o;cers in the

performance of o;cial duties written the am/it

of their powers. As held in For/es, etc. vs.

Chuoco &iaco and Cross"eldB 4

No one can /e held le)all+ responsi/le in

dama)es or otherwise for doin) in a le)al

manner what he had authorit+, under the law,to do. &herefore, if the Hovernor5Heneral had

authorit+, under the law to deport or e2pel the

defendants, and circumstances ustif+in) the

deportation and the method of carr+in) it out

are left to him, then he cannot /e held lia/le in

dama)es for the e2ercise of this power.

(oreover, if the courts are without authorit+ to

interfere in an+ manner, for the purpose of

controllin) or interferrin) with the e2ercise of

the political powers vested in the chief

e2ecutive authorit+ of the Hovernment, then it

must follow that the courts cannot intervenefor the purpose of declarin) that he is lia/le in

dama)es for the e2eercise of this authorit+.

It ma+ /e that the respondents, as mem/ers of

the Armed Forces of the Philippines, were

merel+ respondin) to their dut+, as the+ claim,

to prevent or suppress lawless violence,

insurrection, re/ellion and su/version in

accordance with Proclamation No. 3-4 of

President (arcos, despite the liftin) of martial

law on $anuar+ 3<, 1E1, and in pursuance of such o/ective, to launch pre5 emptive stri%es



a)ainst alle)ed communist terrorist

under)round houses. ut this cannot /e

construed as a /lan%et license or a rovin)

commission untramelled /+ an+ constitutional

restraint, to disre)ard or trans)ress upon the

ri)hts and li/erties of the individual citi=en

enshrined in and protected /+ the Constitution.

&he Constitution remains the supreme law of

the land to which all o;cials, hi)h or low,civilian or militar+, owe o/edience and

alle)iance at all times.

Article ?3 of the Civil Code which renders an+

pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee or an+ private

individual lia/le in dama)es for violatin) the

Constitutional ri)hts and li/erties of another, as

enumerated therein, does not e2empt the

respondents from responsi/ilit+. 'nl+ ud)es

are e2cluded from lia/ilit+ under the said

article, provided their acts or omissions do not

constitute a violation of the Penal Code or

other penal statute.

&his is not to sa+ that militar+ authorities are

restrained from pursuin) their assi)ned tas% or

carr+in) out their mission with vi)or. e have

no quarrel with their dut+ to protect the

9epu/lic from its enemies, whether of the left

or of the ri)ht, or from within or without,

see%in) to destro+ or su/vert our democratic

institutions and imperil their ver+ e2istence.

hat we are merel+ tr+in) to sa+ is that incarr+in) out this tas% and mission,

constitutional and le)al safe)uards must /e

o/served, otherwise, the ver+ fa/ric of our faith

will start to unravel. In the /attle of competin)

Ideolo)ies, the stru))le for the mind is ust as

vital as the stru))le of arms. &he linchpin in

that ps+cholo)ical stru))le is faith in the rule

of law. 'nce that faith is lost or compromised,

the stru))le ma+ well /e a/andoned.

e do not "nd merit in respondentssu))estion that plainti*s cause of action is

/arred /+ the suspension of the privile)e of the

writ of ha/eas corpus. 9espondents contend

that Petitioners cannot circumvent the

suspension of the privile)e of the writ /+

resortin) to a dama)e suit aimed at the same

purpose5udicial inquir+ into the alle)ed

ille)alit+ of their detention. hile the main

relief the+ as% /+ the present action is

indemni"cation for alle)ed dama)es the+su*ered, their causes of action are ine2trica/l+

/ased on the same claim of violations of their

constitutional ri)hts that the+ invo%ed in the

ha/eas corpus case as )rounds for release

from detention. ere the petitioners allowed

the present suit, the udicial inquir+ /arred /+

the suspension of the privile)e of the writ will

ta%e place. &he net result is that what the

courts cannot do, i.e. override the suspension

ordered /+ the President, petitioners will /e

a/le to do /+ the mere e2pedient of alterin)

the title of their action.

e do not a)ree. e "nd merit in petitioners

contention that the suspension of the privile)e

of the writ of ha/eas corpus does not destro+

petitioners ri)ht and cause of action for

dama)es for ille)al arrest and detention and

other violations of their constitutional ri)hts.

&he suspension does not render valid an

otherwise ille)al arrest or detention. hat is

suspended is merel+ the ri)ht of the individual

to see% release from detention throu)h the writof ha/eas corpus as a speed+ means of

o/tainin) his li/ert+.

(oreover, as pointed out /+ petitioners, their

ri)ht and cause of action for dama)es are

e2plicitl+ reco)ni=ed in P.!. No. 1<-- which

amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code /+

addin) the followin) to its te2tB

owever, when the action >for inur+ to the

ri)hts of the plainti* or for a quasi5delict@ arisesfrom or out of an+ act, activit+ or conduct of

an+ pu/lic o;cer involvin) the e2ercise of

powers or authorit+ arisin) from (artial #aw

includin) the arrest, detention and7or trial of

the plainti*, the same must /e /rou)ht within

one >1@ +ear.

Petitioners have a point in contendin) that

even assumin) that the suspension of the

privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus suspendspetitioners ri)ht of action for dama)es for

ille)al arrest and detention, it does not and

cannot suspend their ri)hts and causes of

action for inuries su*ered /ecause of

respondents con"scation of their private

/elon)in)s, the violation of their ri)ht to

remain silent and to counsel and their ri)ht to

protection a)ainst unreasona/le searches and

sei=ures and a)ainst torture and other cruel

and inhuman treatment.

owever, we "nd it unnecessar+ to address the

constitutional issue pressed upon us. 'n (arch

3-, 1E6, President Cora=on C. Aquino issued

Proclamation No. 3, revo%in) Proclamation Nos.

34- and 34-5A and liftin) the suspension of

the privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus. &he

question therefore has /ecome moot and

academic.

&his /rin)s us to the crucial issue raised in this

petition. (a+ a superior o;cer under the

notion of respondent superior /e answera/lefor dama)es, ointl+ and severall+ with his

su/ordinates, to the person whose

constitutional ri)hts and li/erties have /een

violated

9espondents contend that the doctrine

of respondent superior is applica/le to the

case. e a)ree. &he doctrine of respondent

superior has /een )enerall+ limited in its

application to principal and a)ent or to master

and servant >i.e. emplo+er and emplo+ee@relationship. No such relationship e2ists



Appl+in) this test, it is di;cult to ustif+ the

trial courts rulin), dismissin) for lac% of cause

of action the complaint a)ainst all the

defendants, e2cept (aor 9odolfo A)uinaldo

and (aster 8)t. ienvenido ala/a. &he

complaint contained alle)ations a)ainst all the

defendants which, if admitted h+potheticall+,

would /e su;cient to esta/lish a cause or

causes of action a)ainst all of them underArticle ?3 of the Civil Code.

&his /rin)s us to the last issue. as the trial

court correct in dismissin) the complaint with

respect to plainti*s 9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de

la Puente, (arco Palo, Alan $a=mine=, Ale2

(arcelino, :li=a/eth Protacio5(arcelino, Alfredo

(ansos and 9olando 8alutin, on the /asis of

the alle)ed failure of said plainti*s to "le a

motion for reconsideration of the courts

resolution of Novem/er E, 1E?, )rantin) the

respondents motion to dismiss

It is undisputed that a timel+ motion to set

aside said order of Novem/er E, 1E? was "led

/+ plainti*s, throu)h counsel. &rue, the motion

was si)ned onl+ /+ Att+. $o%er P. Arro+o,

counsel for enamin 8es)ulido0 Att+. Antonio

9osales, counsel for :dwin #ope= and (anuel

(artin Hu=man0 Att+. Pedro . :lla, $r., counsel

for Nestor odino and Carlos Palma0 Att+. Arno

G. 8anidad, counsel for Arturo &a/ara0 Att+.

Felicitas 8. Aquino, counsel for $oseph 'la+er0and Att+. Ale2ander Padilla, counsel for 9odolfo

enosa.

ut the /od+ of the motion itself clearl+

indicated that the motion was "led on /ehalf of

all the plainti*s. And this must have /een also

the understandin) of defendants counsel

himself for when he "led his comment on the

motion, he furnished copies thereof, not ust to

the law+ers who si)ned the motion, /ut to all

the law+ers of plainti*s, to witB Att+s. $ose!io%no, Procopio eltran, 9ene 8armiento,

:fren (ercado, Au)usto 8anche=, Antonio

9osales, Pedro :a $r., Arno 8anidad, Ale2ander

Padilla, $o%er Arro+o, 9ene 8a)uisa), 9amon

:s)uerra and Felicitas 8. Aquino.

In "lin) the motion to set aside the resolution

of Novem/er E, 1E?, the si)nin) attorne+s did

so on /ehalf of all the plainti*. &he+ needed no

speci"c authorit+ to do that. &he authorit+ of an attorne+ to appear for and in /ehalf of a

part+ can /e assumed, unless questioned or

challen)ed /+ the adverse part+ or the part+

concerned, which was never done in this case.

&hus, it was )rave a/use on the part of

respondent ud)e to ta%e it upon himself to rule

that the motion to set aside the order of

Novem/er E, 1-? dismissin) the complaint

was "led onl+ /+ some of the plainti*s, when

/+ its ver+ lan)ua)e it was clearl+ intended to

/e "led /+ and for the /ene"t of all of them. It

is o/vious that the respondent ud)e too%

um/ra)e under a contrived technicalit+ to

declare that the dismissal of the complaint had

alread+ /ecome "nal with respect to some of

the plainti*s whose law+ers did not si)n the

motion for reconsideration. 8uch action tainted

with le)al in"rmit+ cannot /e sanctioned.

Accordin)l+, we )rant the petition and annul

and set aside the resolution of the respondent

court, dated Novem/er E, 1E?, its order dated

(a+ 11, 1E4 and its resolution dated8eptem/er 31, 1E4. #et the case /e

remanded to the respondent court for further

proceedin)s. ith costs a)ainst private

respondents.

8' '9!:9:!.



G.R. No. 72/ (%!t%?@%0 2, 1994M* GARMENT(, IN'., and LARR6 '. DEG3MAN, !%t#t#on%0s,&s.TE )N)RALE ')RT )F A**EAL(,AGNE( ILLA 'R3, MIRA()L LGATIMAN,and GERTRDE( G)N3ALE(, 0%s!ond%nts.*N), J.:

&he constitutional protection of our peoplea)ainst unreasona/le search and sei=ure is not

merel+ a pleasin) platitude. It vouchsafes our

ri)ht to privac+ and di)nit+ a)ainst undesira/le

intrusions committed /+ an+ pu/lic o;cer or

private individual. An infrin)ement of this ri)ht

usti"es an award for dama)es.

'n Fe/ruar+ 33, 1E?, petitioner (P

Harments, Inc., was awarded /+ the o+ 8couts

of the Philippines, the e2clusive franchise to

sell and distri/ute o;cial o+ 8couts uniforms,supplies, /ad)es, and insi)nias. In their

(emorandum A)reement, petitioner

corporation was )iven the authorit+ to

underta%e or cause to /e underta%en the

prosecution in court of all ille)al sources of

scout uniforms and other scoutin) supplies. 1

8ometime in 'cto/er 1E?, petitioner

corporation received information that private

respondents A)nes Gilla Cru=, (irasol

#u)atiman, and Hertrudes Hon=ales were

sellin) o+ 8couts items and paraphernaliawithout an+ authorit+. Petitioner de Hu=man, an

emplo+ee of petitioner corporation, was tas%ed

to underta%e the necessar+ surveillance and to

ma%e a report to the Philippine Consta/ular+

>PC@.

'n 'cto/er 3-, 1E?, at a/out 1B? A.(.,

petitioner de Hu=man, Captain 9enato (.

Pea"el, and two >3@ other consta/ular+ men of

the 9eaction Force attalion, 8i%atuna Gilla)e,

!iliman, Que=on Cit+ went to the stores of respondents at the (ari%ina Pu/lic (ar%et.

ithout an+ warrant, the+ sei=ed the /o+ and

)irl scouts pants, dresses, and suits on displa+

at respondents stalls. &he sei=ure caused a

commotion and em/arrassed private

respondents. 9eceipts were issued for the

sei=ed items. &he items were then turned over

/+ Captain Pea"el to petitioner corporation for

safe%eepin).

A criminal complaint for unfair competition was

then "led a)ainst private respondents. 2 !urin)

its pendenc+, petitioner de Hu=man e2acted

from private respondent #u)atiman the sum of

&9:: &'D8AN! 'N: DN!9:! P:8'8

>P?,1.@ in order to /e dropped from the

complaint. 'n !ecem/er 6, 1E?, after a

preliminar+ investi)ation, the Provincial Fiscal

of 9i=al dismissed the complaint a)ainst all the

private respondents. 'n Fe/ruar+ 6, 1E4, he

also ordered the return of the sei=ed items. &he

sei=ed items were not immediatel+ returned

despite demands. Private respondents had to

)o personall+ to petitioners place of /usiness

to recover their )oods. :ven then, not all the

sei=ed items were returned. &he other items

returned were of inferior qualit+.

Private respondents then "led Civil Case No.

-1144 a)ainst the petitioners for sums of

mone+ and dama)es. 4 In its !ecision dated

$anuar+ , 1E<, the trial court ruled for the

private respondents, thusB

:9:F'9:, ud)ment is here/+ rendered in

favor of plainti*s and a)ainst defendants,

orderin) the latter ointl+ and severall+B

1. &o return the amount of P?,1. to plainti*

(irasol #u)atiman with interest at 13R per

annum from $anuar+ 13, 1E4, the date of the

last receipt issued, until full+ paid0

3. &o pa+ plainti* A)nes Gilla Cru= the sum of

P3,. for the 36 pieces of )irl scout items

not returned0

?. &o pa+ plainti*s the amount of P-,.

for and as moral dama)es and P1-,. for

and as e2emplar+ dama)es0 and

4. P-,. for and as attorne+s fees andliti)ation e2penses.

Costs a)ainst the defendants.

8' '9!:9:!.

&he decision was appealed to the respondent

court. 'n $anuar+ 1E, 1E, its Fifth

!ivision, 5 a;rmed the !ecision with

modi"cation, thusB

:9:F'9:, the decision appealed from is

AFFI9(:! with ('!IFICA&I'N0 and, as

modi"ed, the dispositive portion thereof now

reads as followsB

$ud)ment is here/+ rendered in favor of

plainti*s >private respondents@ and a)ainst

defendants >petitioners@, orderin) the latter

ointl+ and severall+0

1. &o return the amount of P?,1. to plainti* >respondent@ (irasol #u)atiman and cancel her

application for distri/utors license0

3. &o pa+ plainti* >respondent@ A)nes Gilla Cru=

the sum of P3,. for the unreturned 36

pieces of )irl scouts items with interest at 13R

per annum from $une 4, 1E4 >date the

complaint was "led@ until it is full+ paid0

?. &o pa+ plainti*s >respondents@ the amount of

P1,. each, or a total of P?,., forand as moral dama)es0 and P-,. each, or



indirectly o/structs, defeats, violates or in an+

manner impedes or impairs an+ of the

followin) ri)hts and li/erties of another person

shall /e lia/le to the latter for dama)es.

>@ &he ri)hts to /e secure in ones person,


unreasona/le searches and sei=ures.


:2emplar+ dama)es ma+ also /e adud)ed.

Art. 331. (oral dama)es ma+ /e recovered in

the followin) and analo)ous cases

>6@ Ille)al search0

>1@ Acts and actions referred to in Articles 31,

36, 3<, 3E, 3, ?, +,, ?4, and ?-.

Pursuant to the fore)oin) provisions, a person

whose constitutional ri)hts have /een violated

or impaired is entitled to actual and moral

dama)es from the pu/lic o;cer or employee

responsi-le therefor . In addition, e2emplar+

dama)es ma+ also /e awarded.

&he ver+ nature of Article ?3 is that the wron)

ma+ /e civil or criminal. It is not necessar+

therefore that there should /e malice or /ad

faith. &o ma%e such a requisite would defeatthe main purpose of Article ?3 which is the

e*ective protection of individual ri)hts. Pu/lic

o;cials in the past have a/used their powers

on the prete2t of usti"a/le motives or )ood

faith in the performance of their duties.

Precisel+, the o/ect of the Article is to put an

end to o;cial a/use /+ plea of the )ood faith.

In the Dnited 8tates this remed+ is in the

nature of a tort. >emphasis supplied@

In the su/sequent case of $-erca vs. er , 1/ the

Court En Banc e2plained the lia/ilit+ of persons

indirectl+ responsi/le,vi/ B

&Jhe decisive factor in this case, in our view, is

the lan)ua)e of Article ?3. &he law spea%s of

an o;cer or employee or person 0directly or

indirectly0 responsi/le for the violation of the

constitutional ri)hts and li/erties of another. &hus, it is not the actor alone >i.e., the one

directl+ responsi/le@ who must answer for

dama)es under Article ?30 the person indirectl+

responsi/le has also to answer for the dama)es

or inur+ caused to the a))rieved part+.

hile it would certainl+ /e too naive to e2pect

that violators of human ri)hts would easil+ /e

deterred /+ the prospect of facin) dama)es

suits, it should nonetheless /e made clear in no

uncertain terms that Article ?3 of the Civil Code

ma%es the persons who are directl+, as well as

indirectly responsi-le for the transgression

1oint tortfeasors.

NJeither can it /e said that onl+ those shown

to have participated directl+ should /e held

lia/le. Article ?3 of the Civil Code encompasses

within the am/it of its provisions those

directl+, as well as indirectly responsi-le for its

violations. >emphasis supplied@

Appl+in) the aforecited provisions and leadin)

cases, the respondent court correctl+ )ranted

dama)es to private respondents. Petitioners

were indirectly involved in trans)ressin) the

ri)ht of private respondents a)ainst

unreasona/le search and sei=ure. Firstl+, the+

insti)ated the raid pursuant to their covenant

in the (emorandum A)reement to underta%e

the prosecution in court of all ille)al sources of

scoutin) supplies. 11 As correctl+ o/served /+

respondent courtB

Indeed, the acts committed /+ the PC soldiers

of unlawfull+ sei=in) appellees >respondents@

merchandise and of "lin) the criminal

complaint for unfair competition a)ainst

appellees >respondents@ were for the protection

and /ene"t of appellant >petitioner@

corporation. 8uch /ein) the case, it is, thus,

reasona/l+ fair to infer from those acts that it

was upon appellant 2petitioner3 corporation4sinstance that the *C soldiers conducted the

raid and e5ected the illegal sei/ure. &hese

circumstances should answer the trial courts

quer+ L posed in its decision now under

consideration L as to why the *C soldiers

immediately turned over the sei/ed

merchandise to appellant 2petitioner3

corporation. 12

&he raid was conducted with the active

participation of their emplo+ee. #arr+ de

Hu=man did not lift a "n)er to stop the sei=ure

of the /o+ and )irl scouts items. + standin) /+

and apparently assenting thereto, he was lia/le

to the same e2tent as the o;cers

themselves. 1 8o with the petitioner

corporation which even received for

safe%eepin) the )oods unreasona/l+ sei=ed /+

the PC raidin) team and de Hu=man, and

refused to surrender them for quite a time

despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair

competition.

8econdl+, #etter of Instruction No. 13 was

precisel+ crafted on (arch , 1E? to

safe)uard not onl+ the privile)e of franchise

holder of scoutin) items /ut also the citi=ens

constitutional ri)hts, to wit B

&I&#:B APP9::N8I'N 'F DNAD&'9IM:!

(ANDFAC&D9:98 AN! !I8&9ID&'98 'F

8C'D& PA9AP:9NA#IA AN! I(P'DN!INH 'F

8AI! PA9AP:9NA#IA.

A8&9AC&B



!irects all law enforcement a)encies of the

9epu/lic of the Philippines, to apprehend

immediatel+ unauthori=ed manufacturers and

distri/utors of 8cout paraphernalia, upon

proper application -y the Boy Scouts of the

*hilippines and6or %irl Scouts of the *hilippines

for warrant of arrest and6or search warrant

with a 1udge or such other responsi-le o7cer

as may -e authori/ed -y law 0 and to impoundthe said paraphernalia to /e used as evidence

in court or other appropriate administrative

/od+. 'rders the immediate and strict

compliance with the "nstructions. 14

Dnder the a/ove provision and as

aforediscussed, petitioners misera/l+ failed to

report the unlawful peddlin) of scoutin) )oods

to the o+ 8couts of the Philippines for the

proper application of a warrant. Private

respondents ri)hts are immuta/le and cannot

/e sacri"ced to transient needs. 15 Petitioners

did not have the un/ridled license to cause the

sei=ure of respondents )oods without an+

warrant.

And thirdl+, if petitioners did not have a hand

in the raid, the+ should have "led a third5part+

complaint a)ainst the raidin) team for

contri/ution or an+ other relief, 1 in respect of

respondents claim for 9ecover+ of 8um of

(one+ with !ama)es. A)ain, the+ did not.

e have consistentl+ ruled that moral

dama)es are not awarded to penali=e the

defendant /ut to compensate the plainti* for

the inuries he ma+ have

su*ered. 17 Conforma/l+ with our rulin) in )im

vs. *once de )eon, op. cit ., moral dama)es can

/e awarded in the case at /ench. &here can /e

no dou/t that petitioners must have su*ered

sleepless ni)hts, serious an2iet+, and wounded

feelin)s due the tortious raid caused /+

petitioners. Private respondents avowals of

em/arrassment and humiliation durin) the

sei=ure of their merchandise were supported /+

their testimonies. 9espondent Cru= declaredB

I felt ver+ nervous. I was cr+in) to loss >sic@ m+

)oods and capital /ecause I am doin) /usiness

with /orrowed mone+ onl+, there was

commotion created /+ the raidin) team and

the+ even stepped on some of the pants and

dresses on displa+ for sale. All passers/+stopped to watch and stared at me with

accusin) e2pressions. I was trem/lin) and

terri/l+ ashamed, sir. 1

9espondent #u)atiman testi"edB

I felt ver+ nervous. I was cr+in) and I was ver+

much ashamed /ecause man+ people have

/een watchin) the PC soldiers haulin) m+

items, and man+7I >sic@ heard sa+ na%aw pala

an) m)a i+an for which I am claimin)P3-,. for dama)es. 19

hile respondent Hon=ale= stated thusB

I do not li%e the wa+ the raid was conducted /+

the team sir /ecause it loo%ed li%e that what I

have /een sellin) were stolen items that the+

should /e con"scated /+ uniformed soldiers.

(an+ people were around and the more the

con"scation was made in a scandalous

manner0 ever+ clothes, &5shirts, pants and

dresses even those not wrapped dropped to

the )round. I was terri/l+ shamed in the

presence of mar%et )oers that mornin). 2/

Needles to state, the wantonness of the

wron)ful sei=ure usti"es the award of

e2emplar+ dama)es. 21 It will also serve as a

stern reminder to all and sundr+ that the

constitutional protection a)ainst unreasona/le

search and sei=ure is a virile realit+ and not a

mere /urst of rhetoric. &he all encompassin)

protection e2tends a)ainst intrusions directl+

done /oth /+ )overnment and indirectl+ /+

private entities.

IN GI: :9:'F, the appealed decision is

AFFI9(:! I& ('!IFICA&I'N. e impose a

8IT P:9C:N& >6R@ interest from $anuar+ ,

1E< on the &' &'D8AN! P:8'8

>P3,.@ for the unreturned twent+5si2 >36@

pieces of )irl scouts items and a &:#G:P:9C:N& >13R@ interest, in lieu of 8IT P:9C:N&

>6R@, on the said amount upon "nalit+ of this

!ecision until the pa+ment thereof. 22 Costs

a)ainst petitioners.

8' '9!:9:!.



G.R. No. L-4/79 A!0#" 17, 199

E(TEAN '. MANEL, petitioner,

vs.

TE )N. ERNANI 'R3 *A) as Judg% o+ t% 'ou0t o+ F#0st Instan8% o+ R#=a", 0.III, <.'., ANT)NI) A. ARANDA, ED(ELLAA6EN and R)LAND)

GATMAITAN, respondents.

'R3, J.:

'ne wonders wh+ the respondent ud)e did not

immediatel+ )rant the petitioners motion to

quash the information on the o/vious and valid

)round that the facts char)ed did not

constitute an o*ense. &his decisive act could

have avoided the needless molestation of onemore citi=en and cleared the clo))ed doc%ets

of this Court of still another of the prosecutions

/i) and small so rampant durin) those da+s of

martial law. (ore importantl+, it would have

a;rmed once a)ain the freedom of e2pression

)uaranteed in the ill of 9i)hts to which ever+

one was entitled even under the 1<?

Constitution.

&his case )oes /ac% to April 31, 1<6, when a

raid was conducted /+ the a)ents of the now

defunct Anti58mu))lin) Action Center on two

rooms in the &o%+o otel in inondo, (anila,

pursuant to a warrant of sei=ure and detention

issued /+ the Actin) Collector of Customs of

(anila on April 3, 1<6. 1 &he raid resulted in

the sei=ure of several articles alle)edl+

smu))led into the countr+ /+ their owners,

three of whom were tourists from on)%on).

&hese articles su/sequentl+ /ecame the

su/ect of sei=ure proceedin)s in the ureau of

Customs /ut most of them were ordered

released upon proof that the customs dutiesand other char)es thereon had /een dul+ paid

as evidenced /+ the correspondin) o;cial

receipts. 'nl+ a few items of no commercial

value were ordered con"scated. 2

hile the sei=ure proceedin)s were pendin),

the petitioner, as counsel for the owners of the

sei=ed articles, sent a letter dated April

1,1<6, to the Chairman of the A8AC in which

he complained a/out the conduct of the raidand demanded that the persons responsi/le

therefore /e investi)ated. &he letter follows in

fullB

:8&:AN C. (AND:#

Attorne+ at #aw

64? Carvaal 8treet

inondo, (anila

&he Chairman

A8AC, Camp A)uinaldoQue=on Cit+

8irB

&his is in /ehalf of m+ clients, (rs. N) oo a+

and her son, (r. #ee Oee (in), who sou)ht m+

help in reportin) to +our )oodself their I

complaint a/out certain acts committed /+

A8AC men which, from all appearances,

constitute criminal o*enses. I am referrin) to

the raid the+ conducted on April 31, 1<6 at

a/out 4B? in the afternoon at &o%+o otel,

'n)pin 8treet, inondo, (anila, pursuant to a

arrant of 8ei=ure and !etention >sei=ure

Identi"cation No. 1433@ issued /+ the Actin)

Collector of Customs on April 3, 1<6. &he

raidin) team, a/out 1 in num/er and headed

/+ one Amado enrol, too% advanta)e of the

fact that (rs. N) oo a+ was alone in her

hotel room. &he A8AC a)ents, despite (rs. N)s

protest and claim of innocence, forced their

wa+ into the room and ransac%ed the place for

alle)ed unta2ed )oods. Not onl+ did the+ ta%eever+thin) the+ could "nd in the room, /ut also

forci/l+ too% from her person the wrist watch

and ade /racelet >)old plated she was wearin)

at the time. &he+ also forced open her hand/a)

and divested her of her wallet containin) <

on)%on) dollars, as well as her nec%lace and

her sons wrist watch which she had placed in

said hand/a). (rs. N) was also su/ected to

the indi)nities of /ein) searched /+ a male

person. After empt+in) the room of itscontents, the raidin) team presented to her a

car/on cop+ of a list purportin) to show the

)oods sei=ed. &he list, however, appears not

onl+ ille)i/le /ut does not reect all the )oods

that were ta%en awa+ /+ the A8AC a)ents.

hat is more, said men, li%ewise ta%in)

advanta)e of the a/sence of (rs. N)s son,

owner of some of the articles, falsi"ed the

si)nature of the latter /+ writin) his name on

the space desi)nated as owner, ma%in) it

appear that he >#ee Oee (in)@ had

ac%nowled)ed that the list covers all the itemssei=ed.

&he documents and other papers presented to

me /+ m+ clients reveal that the articles sei=ed

were declared at the (anila International

Airport upon arrival, and were properl+

appraised. &he correspondin) customs char)es

were li%ewise paid. It is evident, therefore, that

m+ clients were victims of foul pla+

masterminded /+ no less than law enforcers

who pre+ on tourists, particularl+ Chinese, foro/vious reasons.

I e2amined the records in the ureau of

Customs and found out that it was on the /asis

of an a;davit e2ecuted /+ A8AC A)ent

9olando Hatmaitan and the letter5request sent

/+ the Gice5Chairman of A8AC ri). Hen.

9amon M. A)uirre, to the Collector of Customs

that prompted the latter to issue the warrant in

question. In this connection, I must state, with

all fran%ness, that there was undue haste in

the request for the issuance of the warrant,



/ecause it is discerni/le from a mere readin) of

the a;davit that its contents are mere pro5

forma and hearsa+ statements of the

a/ovenamed A8AC a)ent. It could not have, as

it now appears, usti"ed the drastic action

sou)ht to /e accomplished.

Needless to state, the incident complained of

not onl+ has caused considera/le dama)e tom+ clients /ut to our countr+ as well. It is for

this reason that we demand for an immediate

and full dress investi)ation of the A8AC o;cers

and men who too% part in or caused the

issuance of the warrant, as well as those who

participated in the raid, with the view of

pur)in) the )overnment of undesira/les0 and

that pendin) such investi)ation the said

o;cers and men /e suspended from further

performin) their duties.

Ger+ trul+ +ours,

>8H!.@ :8&:AN C. (AND:#

&he Chairman of the A8AC ordered the

investi)ation as demanded, /ut the a)ents

char)ed were all e2onerated in a decision

dated Au)ust 3-, 1<6. 4 Not satis"ed with

what he later descri/ed as a home town

decision, the petitioner, on /ehalf of his

clients, "led a complaint for ro//er+ a)ainst

the same a)ents with the ';ce of the Cit+Fiscal of (anila. &his was later withdrawn,

however, on advice of the inquest "scal who

said that the case mi)ht come under the

urisdiction of the militar+ tri/unal. 5 &he

petitioner sa+s he then went to Camp

A)uinaldo /ut was discoura)ed from "lin) the

complaint there when lie was told that it would

ta%e a/out a +ear to complete the preliminar+

investi)ation alone. &he owners of the sei=ed

articles then instituted a civil complaint for

dama)es which the petitioner "led for them in

the Court of First Instance of (anila on $une

<,1<6. 7

&hree da+s later, there appeared in the $une

1, 1<6 issue of the ulletin &oda+ the

followin) reportB

&'D9I8&8 8D: AH:N&8, 'FFICIA#

Four Chinese, three of whom were tourists from

on)%on), have "led a case for dama)es

a)ainst a customs o;cial and 11 a)ents of the

)overnments anti5smu))lin) action center

A8AC in connection with a raid conducted in

their hotel rooms, more than a month a)o.

&he case was doc%eted in (anilas court of "rst

instance >CFI@ as Civil Case No. 1364.

&he complaints also alle)ed the+ lost assortedmaterials amountin) to P46,?.4.

Named respondents in the case were actin)

customs collector 9amon M. A)uirre, 9olando

Hatmaitan, Antonio aranda, Amado (. &irol,

Francisco C. 8antos, :dsel #a/a+en, $ose

9o/les, Nestor :use/io, Freddie 'cnila, 9enato

Quiro=, Pedro Cunanan, $r., and :nrique Pere=,

all of A8AC

&he actin) customs collector was impleaded inthe case in his o;cial capacit+ for havin)

issued the warrant that led to the criminal

o*enses complained of.

Aquirre, A8AC vice5chairman, was named as

defendant for solicitin) the issuance of a

warrant of sei=ure and detention reportedl+ on

the /asis of char)es contained in an a;davit

e2ecuted /+ Hatmaitan, another A8AC a)ent.

:ste/an (anuel "led the case in /ehalf of the

plainti*s composed of (anila resident N) &ee,

and on) Oon) visitors N) oo a+, Chen) Pi%

Sin) and #ee Oee (in) who came to the

Philippines to visit their relatives and friends.

&he a)ents alle)edl+ su/ected N) oo a+ to

indi)nities and too% her nec%lace, /racelet and

wrist watch. &he+ alle)edl+ sei=ed man+

articles valued at P3<, which have

remained unaccounted for in the list su/mitted/+ the defendants as the inventor+ of the items

con"scated.

'n the /asis of these antecedent facts, an

information for li/el was "led a)ainst the

petitioner, #ee Oee (in) and N) oo a+ in the

Court of First Instance of 9i=al. 9 A readin) of

the information does not show wh+ the two

Chinese were included in the char)e0 all it said

was that the+ were the clients of the petitioner.

As for the petitioner himself, it was alle)ed that

he had committed the crime of li/el /+ writin)

the letter of April 3, 1<6 >which was quoted

in full@ and /+ causin) the pu/lication of the

news item in the ulletin &oda+.

&he su/ect of this petition is the order of the

respondent ud)e dated (arch 3?,

1<<, 1/ den+in) the motion to quash "led /+

the petitioner, who had claimed that his letter

to the A8AC Chairman was not actiona/le

/ecause it was a privile)ed communication0

that the news report in the ulletin &oda+ wasnot /ased on the letter5complaint0 and that in

an+ case it was a fair and true report of a

udicial proceedin) and therefore also

privile)ed. 11 is motion for reconsideration

havin) /een also denied in the order dated

April 3<,1<<,12 he now see%s relief from this

Court a)ainst what he claims as the )rave

a/use of discretion committed /+ the

respondent ud)e in sustainin) the information.

It is perhaps indicative of the wea%ness of therespondents position that when as%ed to



comment on the petitioners motion to quash,

the cit+ "scal never did so durin) a period of

more than ninet+ da+s. 1 It was left to a

private prosecutor to enter his own appearance

thereafter, presuma/l+ /ecause the "scal did

not seem to /e ver+ enthusiastic a/out the

case, and to "le the comment for the private

respondents himself 14 #ater, when the

petitioner came to this Court and we required acomment from the 8olicitor Heneral, this

o;cial complied onl+ after as%in) for >and

)ettin)@ twent+5si2 e2tensions for a total of

nine months and seven da+s, and at that the

comment was onl+ a half5hearted defense of

the challen)ed orders. 15 !espite the

petitioners e*ective re/uttal in his repl+, the

8olicitor Heneral did not as% for leave to "le a

reoinder as if he had lost all taste for com/at

notwithstandin) the man+ points raised /+ the

petitioner that had to /e refuted.

Perhaps it was ust as well. #i%e a )ood )eneral,

the 8olicitor Heneral pro/a/l+ understood that

the /attle was lost.

Indeed it was. In fact, it should never have

commenced.

From the purel+ procedural perspective, there

is much to fault a/out the information. &he two

Chinese clients who were impleaded with the

petitioner were char)ed witha/solutel+ nothing, promptin) the respondent

ud)e to peremptoril+ dismiss the information

as to them. 1 orse, the information imputed

to the remainin) accused two di*erent

o*enses, to wit, writin) the alle)edl+ li/elous

letter and causin) the pu/lication of the

alle)edl+ li/elous news report. &his was not

allowed under 9ule 11, 8ection 13, of the

9ules of Court, providin) that a complaint or

information must char)e /ut one o*ense,

e2cept onl+ in those cases in which e2istin)

laws prescri/e a sin)le punishment for various

o*enses. 17 If li/elous the letter and the news

report constituted separate o*enses that

should have /een char)ed in separate

informations. >owever, not havin) /een raised

in the motion to quash, that )round was

deemed waived under 9ule 1-, 8ection E, of

the 9ules of Court.@ 1

From the viewpoint of su/stantive law, thechar)e is even more defective, if not ridiculous.

An+ one with an elementar+ I %nowled)e of

constitutional law and criminal law would have

%nown that neither the letter nor the news

account was li/elous.

&he applica/le provision in the 9evised Penal

Code reads as followsB

Article ?-4. Requirement for pu-licity . L :ver+

defamator+ imputation is presumed to /emalicious, even if it /e true, if no )ood

intention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is

shown, e2cept in the followin) casesB

1. A private communication made /+ an+

person to another in the performance of an+

le)al, moral or social dut+0 and

3. A fair and true report, made in )ood faith,

without comments or remar%s, of an+ udicial,

le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s which

are not of con"dential nature, or of an+

statement, report or speech delivered in said

proceedin)s, or of an+ other act performed /+

pu/lic o;cers in the e2ercise of their functions.

&he letter comes under Item 1 as it was

addressed /+ the petitioner to the A8AC

Chairman to complain a)ainst the conduct of

his men when the+ raided the Chinese tourists

rooms in the &o%+o otel. It was sent /+ the

petitioner mainl+ in his capacit+ as a law+er in

the dischar)e of his le)al dut+ to protect his

clients. hile his principal purpose was to

vindicate his clients interests a)ainst the

a/uses committed /+ the A8AC a)ents, he

could also invo%e his civic dut+ as a private

individual to e2pose anomalies in the pu/lic

service. &he complaint was addressed to the

o;cial who had authorit+ over them and could

impose the proper disciplinar+ sanctions.

8i)ni"cantl+, as an inde2 of )ood faith, theletter was sent privatel+ directl+ to the

addressee, without an+ fanfare or pu/licit+.

As for the news report, it is di;cult to /elieve

that the petitioner, an ordinar+ citi=en without

an+ %nown ties to the newspapers, could have

/+ himself caused the pu/lication of such an

e2plosive item. &here is no prima facieshowin)

that, /+ some %ind of inuence he had over the

periodical, he succeeded in havin) it pu/lished

to defame the A8AC a)ents. It does not appear

either that the report was paid for li%e an

advertisement. &his loo%s instead to /e the

result of the resourcefulness of the newspaper

in discoverin) matters of pu/lic interest for

dutiful disclosure to its readers. It should /e

presumed that the report was included in the

issue as part of the newspapers covera)e of

important current events as selected /+ its

editorial sta*.

At an+ rate, the news item comes under Item 3

of the a/ovequoted article as it is a true andfair report of a udicial proceedin), made in

)ood faith and without comments or remar%s.

&his is also privile)ed. (oreover, it is not

correct to sa+, as the 8olicitor Heneral does,

that Article ?-4 is not applica/le /ecause the

complaint reported as "led would not /+ itself

alone constitute a udicial proceedin) even

/efore the issues are oined and trial is /e)un.

&he doctrine he invo%es is no lon)er

controllin). &he case of Choa &e% ee v.

Philippine Pu/lishin) Co., 19 which he dies, has



/een superseded /+ Cuenco v.

Cuenco, 2/ where the Court cate)oricall+ heldB

e are "rml+ convinced that the correct rule

on the matter should /e that a fair and true

report of a complaint "led in court without

remar%s nor comments even -efore an

answer is "led or a decision promul)ated

should /e covered /+ the privile)e. >:mphasisprovided@

It ma+ also /e ar)ued that the complaint,

standin) /+ itself, is a pu/lic record and ma+

/e pu/lished as such under 9ule 1?-, 8ection 3

of the 9ules of Court unless the court directs

otherwise in the interest of moralit+ or

decenc+.

It is true that the matters mentioned in Article

?-4 as e2ceptions to the )eneral rule are nota/solutel+ privile)ed and are still actiona/le.

owever, since what is presumed is not malice

/ut in fact lac% of malice, it is for the

prosecution to overcome that presumption /+

proof that the accused was actuall+ motivated

/+ malice. A/sent such proof, the char)e must

fail.

e are not unmindful of the contention that

the information should not /e dismissed

outri)ht /ecause the prosecution must "rst /e

)iven a chance to introduce evidence toovercome the presumption. &his is indeed the

normal procedure. owever, where it appears

from the alle)ations in the information itself

that the accused acted in )ood faith and for

usti"a/le ends in ma%in) the alle)edl+ li/elous

imputations, and in pertinent pleadin)s, there

is no need to prolon) the proceedin)s to the i

preudice of the defendant. &he Court can and

should dismiss the char)e without further ado,

as we held in People v. AndresB 21

&he prosecution claims that the trial court

erred in dismissin) the case on a mere motion

to quash, contendin) that the trial ud)es

conclusion on the face of the information that

defendant5 appellee was prompted onl+ /+

)ood motives assumes a fact to /e proved, and

that the alle)ed privile)ed nature of defendant5

appellees pu/lication is a matter of defense

and is not a proper )round for dismissal of thecomplaint for li/el >#u Chu 8in), et al. vs. #u

&ion) Hui <6 Phil. 66@.

hen in the information itself it appears that

the communication alle)ed to /e li/elous is

contained in an appropriate pleadin) in a court

proceedin), the privilege -ecomes at once

apparent and defendant need not wait until the

trial and produce evidence -efore he can raise

the question of privilege. And if, added to this,

the questioned imputations appear to /e reall+

pertinent and relevant to defendants plea for

reconsideration /ased on complainants

supposed partialit+ and a/use of power from

which defendant has a ri)ht to see% relief in

vindication of his clients interest as a liti)ant in

complainants court, it would -ecome evident

that the facts thus alleged in the information

would not constitute an o5ense of li-el.

As has alread+ /een said /+ this CourtB As to

the de)ree of relevanc+ or pertinenc+

necessar+ to ma%e alle)ed defamator+ matterprivile)ed, the courts are inclined to /e li/eral.

&he matter to which the privile)e does not

e2tend must /e so palpa/l+ wantin) in relation

to the su/ect matter of the controvers+ that

no reasona/le man can dou/t its irrelevanc+

and impropriet+. avin) this in mind, it can not

-e said that the trial court committed a

reversi-le error in this case of 8nding that the

allegations in the information itself present a

case of an a-solutely privileged

communication 1ustifying the dismissal of the

case.

&he two e2ceptions provided for under Article

?-4 are /ased on the wider )uarantee of

freedom of e2pression as an institution of all

repu/lican societies. &his in turn is predicated

on the proposition that the ordinar+ citi=en has

a ri)ht and a dut+ to involve himself in matters

that a*ect the pu/lic welfare and, for this

purpose, to inform himself of such matters.

&he vitalit+ of repu/licanism derives from an

alert citi=enr+ that is alwa+s read+ to

participate in the discussion and resolution of

pu/lic issues. &hese issues include the conduct

of )overnment functionaries who are

accounta/le to the people in the performance

of their assi)ned powers, which after all come

from the people themselves. :ver citi=en has a

ri)ht to e2pect from all pu/lic servants utmost

"delit+ to the trust reposed in them and the

ma2imum of e;cienc+ and inte)rit+ in the

dischar)e of their functions. :ver+ citi=en has a

ri)ht to complain and critici=e if this hope is

/etra+ed.

It is no less important to o/serve that this

vi)ilance is not onl+ a ri)ht /ut a responsi/ilit+

of the hi)hest order that should not /e shir%ed

for fear of o;cial reprisal or /ecause of mere

civic lethar)+. henever the citi=en discovers

o;cial anomal+, it is his dut+ to e2pose and

denounce it, that the culprits ma+ /e punished

and the pu/lic service cleansed even as theri)hts violated are vindicated or redressed. It

can never /e overstressed that indi*erence to

ineptness will /reed more ineptness and that

toleration of corruption will /reed more

corruption. &he sins of the pu/lic service are

imputa/le not onl+ to those who actuall+

commit them /ut also to those who /+ their

silence or inaction permit and encoura)e their

commission.

&he responsi/ilit+ to review the conduct of the

)overnment functionaries is especiall+



addressed to the law+er /ecause his trainin)

ena/les him, /etter than most citi=ens, to

determine if the law has /een violated or

irre)ularities have /een committed, and to ta%e

the needed steps to remed+ the wron) and

punish the )uilt+.

&he respondents contend that the letter was

written /+ the petitioner to inuence thesei=ure proceedin)s which were then pendin).

:ven assumin) that to /e true, such purpose

did not necessaril+ ma%e the letter malicious,

especiall+ if it is considered that the complaint

a)ainst the A8AC a)ents could not /e raised in

the said proceedin)s. &he A8AC Chairman, not

the Collector of Customs, had urisdiction to

discipline the a)ents.

It should also /e noted, as further evidence of

lac% of malice, that even after the sei=ure

proceedin)s had /een concluded in favor of the

petitioners clients, he pursued their complaint

a)ainst the A8AC a)ents in the "scals o;ce in

(anila and then with the militar+ authorities in

Camp A)uinaldo, endin) with the "lin) of the

civil case for dama)es in the court of "rst

instance of (anila.

It would /e a sad da+ indeed if for denouncin)

venalit+ in )overnment, the citi=en could /e

called to tas% and /e himself punished on the

)round of malicious defamation. If ever+accuser were himself to /e accused for

dischar)in) his dut+ as he sees it, then will the

wron)5doer have /een )ranted in e*ect, and

/+ this Court no less, an undeserved immunit+

for his misdeeds or omissions. &he private

individual would /e /arred from complainin)

a/out pu/lic misconduct. :ver+ criticism he

ma%es would /e tainted with malice and

pronounced as criminal. &he ne2t step ma+

well /e a conspirac+ amon) those in the

)overnment to cover up each others faults and

to insulate themselves from the le)itimate

e*orts of the people to question their conduct.

&he second e2ception is usti"ed under the

ri)ht of ever+ citi=en to /e informed on matters

of pu/lic interest, which, si)ni"cantl+, was "rst

reco)ni=ed in the 1<? Constitution. :ven if it

were not, the ri)ht would still /e em/raced in

the /roader safe)uard of freedom of e2pression, for the simple reason that the ri)ht

to spea% intelli)entl+ on matters that touch

the e2istin) order necessaril+ imports the

availa/ilit+ of adequate o;cial information on

such matters. 8urel+, the e2ercise of such ri)ht

cannot inspire /elief if /ased onl+ on

conectures and rumors and half5truths

/ecause direct access to the facts is not

allowed to the ordinar+ citi=en.

&his ri)ht is now e*ectivel+ eno+ed with the

help of the mass media, which have fortunatel+

resumed their roles as an independent conduit

of information /etween the )overnment and

the people. It is the reco)ni=ed dut+ of the

media to report to the pu/lic what is )oin) on

in the )overnment, includin) the proceedin)s

in an+ of its departments or a)encies, save

onl+ in e2ceptional cases involvin) decenc+ or

con"dentialit+ when disclosure ma+ /e

prohi/ited.&o protect them in the dischar)e of

this mission, the law sa+s that as lon) as the

account is a fair and true report of suchproceedin)s, and made without an+ remar%s or

comment, it is considered privile)ed and

malice is not presumed. Its pu/lication is

encoura)ed rather than suppressed or

punished.

&his is one reason wh+ the Court loo%s with

disapproval on censorship in )eneral as an

unconstitutional a/rid)ment of freedom of

e2pression, Censorship presumes malice at the

outset, It prevents inquir+ into pu/lic a*airs

and curtails their disclosure and discussion,

leavin) the people in the dar% as to what is

happenin) in the pu/lic service. + loc%in) the

pu/lic portals to the citi=en, who can onl+

)uess at the )oin)s on in the for/idden

precints, censorship separates the people from

their )overnment. &his certainl+ should not /e

permitted. A free press stands as one of the

)reat interpreters /etween the )overnment

and the people, declared $ustice 8utherland of the D.8. 8upreme Court. &o allow it to /e

fettered is to fetter ourselves.

It is curious that the ones most o/viousl+

responsi/le for the pu/lication of the alle)edl+

o*ensive news report, namel+, the editorial

sta* and the periodical itself, were not at all

impleaded. &he char)e was leveled a)ainst the

petitioner and, curiouser still, his clients who

had nothin) to do with the editorial policies of

the newspaper. &here is here a manifest e*ort

to persecute and intimidate the petitioner for

his temerit+ in accusin) the A8AC a)ents who

apparentl+ eno+ed special privile)es L and

perhaps also immunities L durin) those

oppressive times. &he non5inclusion of the

periodicals was a transparent h+pocris+, an

ostensi/l+ pious if not at all convincin)

pretense of respect for freedom of e2pression

that was in fact one of the most desecrated

li/erties durin) the past despotism.

e are convinced that the information a)ainstthe petitioner should never have /een "led at

all and that the respondent ud)e committed

)rave a/use of discretion in den+in) the

motion to quash the information on the )round

that the alle)ation petitions therein did not

constitute an o*ense. &he petitioner is entitled

to the relief he see%s from those who in the

)uise of law and throu)h the instrumentalit+ of

the trial court would impose upon him this

warrant t+rann+.



ACC'9!INH#S, the petition is H9AN&:!. &he

orders of the respondent ud)e dated (arch

3?, 1<<, and April 3<, 1<<, are 8:& A8I!:

and Criminal Case No. Q5<4-, in his court, is

!I8(I88:!. Costs a)ainst the respondents.

8' '9!:9:!.



G.R. No. 124 Janua0> 14, 1999ARTR) )RJAL a.B.a. ART )RJAL andMAIM) ()LIEN, !%t#t#on%0s,&s.')RT )F A**EAL( and FRAN'I(')EN'E(LA), 0%s!ond%nts. ELL)(ILL), J.:

P:9P:&DA##S AH9I!!:N as the pu/lic is

a/out losin) one of the most /asic +et oft hotl+contested freedoms of man, the issue of the

ri)ht of free e2pression /e stirs and presents

itself time and a)ain, in c+clic occurrence, to

invei)le, na+, challen)e the courts to re5surve+

its ever shiftin) terrain, e2plore and furrow its

heretofore uncharted moors and valle+s and

"nall+ rede"ne the metes and /ounds of its

controversial domain. &his, prominentl+, is one

such case.

Perhaps, never in urisprudential histor+ hasan+ freedom of man under)one radical

doctrinal metamorphoses than his ri)ht to

freel+ and openl+ e2press his views.

lac%stones ponti"cal comment that where

/lasphemous, immoral, treasona/le,

schismatical, seditious, or scandalous li/els are

punished /+ :n)lish law ... the li/ert+ of the

press, properl+ understood, is /+ no means

infrin)ed or violated, found %indred e2pression

in the landmar% opinion of :n)lands 8tar

Cham/er in the )i-elis !amosis case in

16?. 1 &hat case esta/lished two maorpropositions in the prosecution of defamator+

remar%sB "rst, that li/el a)ainst a pu/lic person

is a )reater o*ense than one directed a)ainst

an ordinar+ man, and second, that it is

immaterial that the li/el /e true.

Dntil repu/licanism cau)ht "re in earl+

America, the view from the top on li/el was no

less dismal. :ven the venera/le $ustice olmes

appeared to waUe as he swa+ed from the

concept of criminal li/el lia/ilit+ under the clearand present dan)er rule, to the other end of

the spectrum in defense of the constitutionall+

protected status of unpopular opinion in free

societ+.

Giewed in modern times and the current

revolution in information and communication

technolo)+, li/el principles formulated at one

time or another have wa2ed and waned

throu)h the +ears in the constant e// and owof udicial review. At the ver+ least, these

principles have lost much of their avor,

drowned and swamped as the+ have /een /+

the ceaseless cacophon+ and din of thou)ht

and discourse emanatin) from ust a/out ever+

source and direction, aided no less /+ an

increasin)l+ powerful and irrepressi/le mass

media. Pu/lic discourse, laments Oni)ht, has

/een devalued /+ its utter commonalit+0 and

we a)ree, for its lo)ical e*ect is to /enum/

thou)ht and sensi/ilit+ on what ma+ /e

considered as criminal ille)itimateencroachments on the ri)ht of persons to eno+

a )ood, honora/le and reputa/le name. &his

ma+ e2plain the impercepti/le demise of

criminal prosecutions for li/el and the trend to

rel+ instead on indemnit+ suits to repair an+

dama)e on ones reputation.

In this petition for review, we are as%ed to

reverse the Court of Appeals in Francisco

enceslao v. Arturo oral and (a2imo

8oliven, CA5H.9. No. 446, holdin) on 3-(arch 16 that petitioners Arturo oral and

(a2imo 8oliven are solidaril+ lia/le for

dama)es for writin) and pu/lishin) certain

articles claimed to /e dero)ator+ and o*ensive

to private respondent Francisco enceslao.

Petitioners Arturo oral and (a2imo 8oliven

are amon) the incorporators of Philippines

&oda+, Inc. >P&I@, now Phil8&A9 !ail+, Inc.,

owner of &he Philippine 8tar, a dail+

newspaper. At the time the complaint was "led,

petitioner oral was its President while 8oliven

was >and still is@ Pu/lisher and Chairman of its

:ditorial oard. Amon) the re)ular writers of

&he Philippine 8tar is oral who runs the

column 9aywal:er .

Private respondent Francisco enceslao, on the

other hand, is a civil en)ineer, /usinessman,

/usiness consultant and ournalist /+

profession. In 1EE he served as a technicaladviser of Con)ressman Fa/ian 8ison, then

Chairman of the ouse of 9epresentatives 8u/5

Committee on Industrial Polic+.

!urin) the con)ressional hearin)s on the

transport crisis sometime in 8eptem/er 1EE

underta%en /+ the ouse 8u/5Committee on

Industrial Polic+, those who attended a)reed to

or)ani=e the First National Conference on #and

&ransportation >FNC#&@ to /e participated in /+

the private sector in the transport industr+ and

)overnment a)encies concerned in order to

"nd wa+s and means to solve the

transportation crisis. (ore importantl+, the

o/ective of the FNC#& was to draft an omni/us

/ill that would em/od+ a lon)5term land

transportation polic+ for presentation to

Con)ress. &he conference which, accordin) to

private respondent, was estimated to cost

around P1,E1-,. would /e funded

throu)h solicitations from various sponsors

such as )overnment a)encies, private

or)ani=ations, transport "rms, and individualdele)ates or participants. 2

'n 3E Fe/ruar+ 1E, at the or)ani=ational

meetin) of the FNC#&, private respondent

Francisco enceslao was elected :2ecutive

!irector. As such, he wrote numerous

solicitation letters to the /usiness communit+

for the support of the conference.

etween (a+ and $ul+ 1E a series of articles

written /+ petitioner oral was pu/lished ondi*erent dates in his column 9aywal:er . &he



even if ph+sicall+ /anned, call still concoct

wa+s of doin) his thin). ithout a tin)e of

remorse, the or)ani=er could "ll up his

letterheads with, names of Ca/inet mem/ers,

con)ressmen, and reputa/le people from the

private sector to shore up his shad+ reputation

and cover up his notoriet+.

+ 9uly ;<=<

A supposed conference on transportation was a

/i) failure. &he attendance was ver+ poor and

the few who participated in, the a*air were

mostl+ leaders of eepne+ drivers )roups.

None of the )overnment o;cials involved in

re)ulatin) pu/lic transportation was there. &he

/i) names in the industr+ also did not

participate. ith such a poor attendance, one

wonders wh+ the conference or)ani=ers went

ahead with the a*air and tried so hard to

convince ?, companies and individuals to

contri/ute to the a*air.

&he conference was doomed from the start. It

was /ound to fail. &he personalities who count

in the "eld of transpiration refused to attend

the a*air or withdrew their support after

"ndin) out the /ac%)round of the or)ani=er of

the conference. ow could a conference on

transportation succeed without the

participation of the /i) names in the industr+

and )overnment polic+5ma%ers

Private respondent reacted to the articles. e

sent a letter to &he Philippine 8tar insistin)

that he was the or)ani=er alluded to in

petitioner orals columns. 4 In a su/sequent

letter to &he Philippine 8tar, private respondent

refuted the matters contained in petitioner

orals columns and openl+ challen)ed him in

this manner L

&o test if oral has the )uts to /ac% up hisholier than thou attitude, I am prepared to

relinquish this position in case it is found that I

have misappropriated even one peso of FNC#&

mone+. 'n the other hand, if I can prove that

oral has used his column as a hammer to

)et clients for his P9 Firm, AA oral Associates,

he should resi)n from the 8&A9 and never

a)ain write a column. Is it a deal 5

&hereafter, private respondent "led acomplaint with the National Press Clu/ >NPC@

a)ainst petitioner oral for unethical conduct.

e accused petitioner oral of usin) his

column as a form of levera)e to o/tain

contracts for his pu/lic relations "rm, AA oral

Associates. In turn, petitioner oral pu/lished

a reoinder to the challen)e of private

respondent not onl+ to protect his name and

honor /ut also to refute the claim that he was

usin) his column for character assassination. 7

Apparentl+ not satis"ed with his complaint with

the NPC, private respondent "led a criminal

case for li/el a)ainst petitioners oral and

8oliven, amon) others. owever, in a

9esolution dated < Au)ust 1, the Assistant

Prosecutor handlin) the case dismissed the

complaint for insu;cienc+ of evidence. &he

dismissal was sustained /+ the !epartment of

$ustice and later /+ the ';ce of the President.

'n ?1 'cto/er 1 private respondent

instituted a)ainst petitioners a civil action fordama)es /ased on li/el su/ect of the instant

case. In their answer, petitioners interposed

compulsor+ counterclaims for actual, moral and

e2emplar+ dama)es, plus attorne+s fees and

costs. After due consideration, the trial court

decided in favor of private respondent

enceslao and ordered petitioners oral and

8oliven to indemnif+ private respondent

P1,,. for actual and compensator+

dama)es, in addition to P3,. for moral

dama)es, P1,. for e2emplar+

dama)es, P3,. for attorne+s fees, and

to pa+ the costs of suit.

&he Court of Appeals a;rmed the decision of

the court a quo /ut reduced the amount of the

monetar+ award to P11,. actual

dama)es, P3,. moral dama)es and

P<-,. attorne+s fees plus costs. In a 35

pa)e !ecision promul)ated 3- (arch 16, theappellate court ruled inter alia that private

respondent was su;cientl+ identi"a/le,

althou)h not named, in the questioned articles0

that private respondent was in fact defamed /+

petitioner oral /+ descri/in) him variousl+ as

a self5proclaimed hero, a conference

or)ani=er associated with shad+ deals who has

a lot of trash tuc%ed inside his closet, thic%

face, and a person with du/ious wa+s0 that

petitioners claim of privile)e communication

was unavailin) since the privile)ed character

of the articles was lost /+ their pu/lication in anewspaper of )eneral circulation0 that

petitioner could have performed his o;cer as a

newspaperman without necessaril+

trans)ressin) the ri)hts of enceslao /+

callin) the attention of the )overnment o;ces

concerned to e2amine the authorit+ /+ which

enceslao acted, warnin) the pu/lic a)ainst

contri/utin) to a conference that, accordin) to

his perception, lac%ed the univocal

indorsement of the responsi/le )overnment

o;cials, or simpl+ informin) the pu/lic of theletters enceslao wrote and the favors he

requested or demanded0 and, that when he

imputed dishonest+, falsehood and

misrepresentation, shamelessness and

intellectual pretentions to enceslao,

petitioner oral crossed the thin /ut clear line

that separated fair comment from actiona/le

defamation.

Private respondent manifested his desire to

appeal that portion of the appellate courts

decision which reduced the amount of



spo%en of in orals columns. &he former even

called up columnist oral to inquire if he

>enceslao@ was the one referred to in the

su/ect articles. 17 is letter to the editor

pu/lished in the 4 $une 1E issue of &he

Philippine 8tar even showed private

respondent enceslaos uncertaint+ L

Althou)h he used a su/terfu)e, I was almostcertain that Art oral referred to the First

National Conference on #and &ransportation

>$une 35?@ and me in the second para)raph

of his (a+ ?1 column . . . 1

Identi"cation is )rossl+ inadequate when even

the alle)ed o*ended part+ is himself unsure

that he was the o/ect of the ver/al attac%. It is

well to note that the revelation of the identit+

of the person alluded to came not from

petitioner oral /ut from private respondent

himself0 when he supplied the information

throu)h his 4 $une 1E letter to the editor.

ad private respondent not revealed that he

was the or)ani=er of the FNC#& referred to in

the oral articles, the pu/lic would have

remained in /lissful i)norance of his identit+. It

is therefore clear that on the element of

identi"a/ilit+ alone the case falls.

&he a/ove disquisitions notwithstandin), and

on the assumption arguendo that private

respondent has /een su;cientl+ identi"ed asthe su/ect of orals disputed comments, we

now proceed to resolve the other issues and

pass upon the pertinent "ndin)s of the courts a

quo.

&he third, fourth, "fth and si2th assi)ned errors

all revolve around the primar+ question of

whether the disputed articles constitute

privile)ed communications as to e2empt the

author from lia/ilit+.

&he trial court ruled that petitioner oral

cannot hide /ehind the proposition that his

articles are privile)ed in character under the

provisions of Art. ?-4 of &he 9evised Penal

Code which state L

Art. ?-4. 9equirement for pu/licit+. L :ver+

defamator+ imputation is presumed to /e

malicious, even if it /e true, if no )oodintention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is


1@ A private communication made /+ an+


le)al, moral or social dut+0 and,

3@ A fair and true report, made in )ood faith,

without an+ comments or remar%s, of an+

udicial or other o;cial proceedin)s which are

not of con"dential nature, or of an+ statement,

report or speech delivered in said proceedin)s,

or of an+ other act performed /+ pu/lic o;cers

in the e2ercise of their functions.

9espondent court e2plained that the writin)s in

question did not fall under an+ of the

e2ceptions descri/ed in the a/ove5quoted

article since these were neither private

communications nor fair and true report . . .

without an+ comments or remar%s. ut this is

incorrect.

A privile)ed communication ma+ /e either

a/solutel+ privile)ed or quali"edl+ privile)ed.

A/solutel+ privile)ed communications are

those which are not actiona/le even if the

author has acted in /ad faith. An e2ample is

found in 8ec. 11, Art.GI, of the 1E<

Constitution which e2empts a mem/er of

Con)ress from lia/ilit+ for an+ speech or

de/ate in the Con)ress or in an+ Committee

thereof. Dpon the other hand, quali"edl+

privile)ed communications containin)defamator+ imputations are not actiona/le

unless found to have /een made without )ood

intention usti"a/le motive. &o this )enre

/elon) private communications and fair and

true report without an+ comments or remar%s.

Indisputa/l+, petitioner orals questioned

writin)s are not within the e2ceptions of Art.

?-4 of &he 9evised Penal Code for, as correctl+

o/served /+ the appellate court, the+ areneither private communications nor fair and

true report without an+ comments or remar%s.

owever this does not necessaril+ mean that

the+ are not privile)ed. &o /e sure, the

enumeration under Art. ?-4 is not an e2clusive

list of quali"edl+ privile)ed communications

since fair commentaries on matters of pu/lic

interest are li%ewise privile)ed. &he rule on

privile)ed communications had its )enesis not

in the nations penal code /ut in the ill of

9i)hts of the Constitution )uaranteein)

freedom of speech and of the press. 19 As earl+as 11E, in United States v. Ca>ete, 2/ this

Court ruled that pu/lications which are

privile)ed for reasons of pu/lic polic+ are

protected /+ the constitutional )uarant+ of

freedom of speech. &his constitutional ri)ht

cannot /e a/olished /+ the mere failure of the

le)islature to )ive it e2press reco)nition in the

statute punishin) li/els.

&he concept of privile)ed communications is

implicit in the freedom of the press. As heldin Eli/alde v. %utierre/ 21 and reiterated

in Santos v. Court of $ppeals 22 L

&o /e more speci"c, no culpa/ilit+ could /e

imputed to petitioners for the alle)ed o*endin)

pu/lication without doin) violence to the

concept of privile)ed communications implicit

in the freedom of the press. As was so well put

/+ $ustice (alcolm in ustosB Pu/lic polic+, the

welfare of societ+, and the orderl+

administration of )overnment have demanded

protection of pu/lic opinion. &he inevita/le and



incontesta/le result has /een the development

and adoption of the doctrine of privile)e.

&he doctrine formulated in these two >3@ cases

resonates the rule that privile)ed

communications must, sui generis, /e

protective of pu/lic opinion. &his closel+

adheres to the democratic theor+ of free

speech as essential to collective self5determination and eschews the strictl+

li/ertarian view that it is protective solel+ of

self5e2pression which, in the words of Sale

8terlin) Professor 'wen Fiss, 2 ma%es its

appeal to the individualistic ethos that so

dominates our popular and political culture. It

is therefore clear that the restrictive

interpretation vested /+ the Court of Appeals

on the penal provision e2emptin) from lia/ilit+

onl+ private communications and fair and true

report without comments or remar%s defeats,

rather than promotes, the o/ective of the ruleon privile)ed communications, sadl+ contrivin)

as it does, to suppress the health+ eUoresence

of pu/lic de/ate and opinion as shinin)

linchpins of trul+ democratic societies.

&o reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of

pu/lic interest are privile)ed and constitute a

valid defense in an action for li/el or slander.

&he doctrine of fair comment means that while

in )eneral ever+ discredita/le imputation

pu/licl+ made is deemed false, /ecause ever+man is presumed innocent until his )uilt is

udiciall+ proved, and ever+ false imputation is

deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the

discredita/le imputation is directed a)ainst a

pu/lic person in his pu/lic capacit+, it is not

necessaril+ actiona/le. In order that such

discredita/le imputation to a pu/lic o;cial ma+

/e actiona/le, it must either /e a false

alle)ation of fact or a comment /ased on a

false supposition. If the comment is an

e2pression of opinion, /ased on esta/lished

facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion

happens to /e mista%en, as lon) as it mi)ht

reasona/l+ /e inferred from the facts. 21

&here is no den+in) that the questioned

articles dealt with matters of pu/lic interest. In

his testimon+, private respondent spelled out

the o/ectives of the conference thus L

. . . &he principal conference o/ective is tocome up with a draft of an 'mni/us ill that

will em/od+ a lon) term land transportation

polic+ for presentation to Con)ress in its ne2t

re)ular session in $ul+. 8ince last $anuar+, the

National Conference on #and &ransportation

>NC#&@, the conference secretariat, has /een

enlistin) support from all sectors to ensure the

success of the proect. 25

Private respondent li%ewise testi"ed that the

FNC#& was raisin) funds throu)h solicitation

from the pu/lic V

QB Now, in this "rst letter, +ou have attached a

/ud)et and it sa+s here that in this seminar of

the First National Conference on #and

&ransportation, +ou will need around 'ne

million ei)ht hundred "fteen thousand pesos, is

that ri)ht

AB &hat was the /ud)et estimate, sir.

QB ow do +ou intend as e2ecutive o;cer, to

raise this fund of +our seminar

AB ell, from sponsors such as )overnment

a)encies and private sectors or or)ani=ations

as well as individual transport "rms and from

individual dele)ates7participants. 2

&he declared o/ective of the conference, the

composition of its mem/ers and participants,

and the manner /+ which it was intended to /e

funded no dou/t lend to its activities as /ein)

)enuinel+ im/ued with pu/lic interest. An

or)ani=ation such as the FNC#& aimin) to

reinvent and reshape the transportation laws of

the countr+ and see%in) to source its funds for

the proect from the pu/lic at lar)e cannot

dissociate itself from the pu/lic character of its

mission. As such, it cannot /ut invite close

scrutin+ /+ the media o/li)ed to inform the

pu/lic of the le)itimac+ of the purpose of the

activit+ and of the quali"cations and inte)rit+

of the personalities /ehind it.

&his in e*ect is the stron) messa)e in New

?or: #imes v. Sullivan 27 which the appellate

court failed to consider or, for that matter, to

heed. It insisted that private respondent was

not, properl+ spea%in), a pu/lic o;cial nor a

pu/lic ")ure, which is wh+ the defamator+

imputations a)ainst him had nothin) to do with

his tas% of or)ani=in) the FNC#&.

New ?or: #imes v. Sullivan was decided /+ the

D. 8. 8upreme Court in the 16s at the hei)ht

of the /lood+ riotin) in the American 8outh

over racial se)re)ation. &he then Cit+

Commissioner #. . 8ullivan of (ont)omer+,

Ala/ama, sued New Sor% &imes for pu/lishin) a

paid political advertisement espousin) racial

equalit+ and descri/in) police atrocities

committed a)ainst students inside a colle)e

campus. As commissioner havin) char)e over

police actions 8ullivan felt that he wassu;cientl+ identi"ed in the ad as the

perpetrator of the outra)e0 consequentl+, he

sued New Sor% &imes on the /asis of what he

/elieved were li/elous utterances a)ainst him.

&he D. 8. 8upreme Court spea%in) throu)h (r.

$ustice illiam $. rennan $r. ruled a)ainst

8ullivan holdin) that honest criticisms on the

conduct of pu/lic o;cials and pu/lic ")ures are

insulated from li/el ud)ments. &he )uarantees

of freedom of speech and press prohi/it a

pu/lic o;cial or pu/lic ")ure from recoverin)



dama)es for a defamator+ falsehood relatin)

to his o;cial conduct unless he proves that the

statement was made with actual malice, i.e.,

with %nowled)e that it was false or with

rec%less disre)ard of whether it was false or

not.

&he raison d4 @tre for the New Sor% &imes

doctrine was that to require critics of o;cialconduct to )uarantee the truth of all their

factual assertions on pain of li/el ud)ments

would lead to self5censorship, since would /e

critics would /e deterred from, voicin) out their

criticisms even if such were /elieved to /e

true, or were in fact true, /ecause of dou/t

whether it could /e proved or /ecause of fear

of the e2pense of havin) to prove it. 2

In the present case, we deem private

respondent a pu/lic ")ure within the purview

of the New Sor% &imes rulin). At an+ rate, we

have also de"ned pu/lic ")ure in $yers

*roduction *ty. )td. v. Capulong 29 as L

. . . . a person who, /+ his accomplishments,

fame, mode of livin), or /+ adoptin) a

profession or callin) which )ives the pu/lic a

le)itimate interest in his doin)s, his a*airs and

his character, has /ecome a pu/lic

persona)e. e is, in other words, a cele/rit+.

'/viousl+ to /e included in this cate)or+ are

those who have achieved some de)ree of reputation /+ appearin) /efore the pu/lic, as in

the case of an actor, a professional /ase/all

pla+er, a pu)ilist, or an+ other entertainer. &he

list is, however, /roader than this. It includes

pu/lic o;cers, famous inventors and e2plorers,

war heroes and even ordinar+ soldiers, infant

prodi)+, and no less a persona)e than the

Hreat :2alted 9uler of the lod)e. It includes, in

short, an+one who has arrived at a position

where the pu/lic attention is focused upon him

as a person.

&he FNC#& was air underta%in) infused with

pu/lic interest. It was promoted as a oint

proect of the )overnment and the private

sector, and or)ani=ed /+ top )overnment

o;cials and prominent /usinessmen. For this

reason, it attracted media milea)e and drew

pu/lic attention not onl+ to the conference

itself /ut to the personalities /ehind as well. As

its :2ecutive !irector and spo%esman, private

respondent consequentl+ assumed the status

of a pu/lic ")ure.

ut even assumin) eAgratia argumenti that

private respondent, despite the position he

occupied in the FNC#&, would not qualif+ as a

pu/lic ")ure, it does not necessaril+ follow that

he could not validl+ /e the su/ect of a pu/lic

comment even if he was not a pu/lic o;cial or

at least a pu/lic ")ure, for he could /e, as lon)

as he was involved in a pu/lic issue. If a matter

is a su/ect of pu/lic or )eneral interest, itcannot suddenl+ /ecame less so merel+

/ecause a private individual is involved or

/ecause in some sense the individual did not

voluntaril+ choose to /ecome involved. &he

pu/lics primar+ interest is in the event0 the

pu/lic focus is on the conduct of the participant

and the content, e*ect and si)ni"cance of the

conduct, not the participants prior anon+mit+

or notoriet+. /

&here is no den+in) that the questionedarticles dealt with matters of pu/lic interest. A

readin) of the imputations of petitioner oral

a)ainst respondent enceslao shows that all

these necessaril+ /ore upon the latters o;cial

conduct and his moral and mental "tness as

:2ecutive !irector of the FNC#&. &he nature and

functions of his position which included

solicitation of funds, dissemination of

information a/out the FNC#& in order to

)enerate interest in the conference, and the

mana)ement and coordination of the various

activities of the conference demanded from

him utmost honest+, inte)rit+ and competence.

&hese are matters a/out which the pu/lic has

the ri)ht to /e informed, ta%in) into account

the ver+ pu/lic character of the conference

itself.

Concededl+, petitioner oral ma+ have )one

over/oard in the lan)ua)e emplo+ed

descri/in) the or)ani=er of the conference.'ne is tempted to wonder if it was /+ some

mischievous )am/it that he would also dare

test the limits of the wild /lue +onder of free

speech in this urisdiction. ut no matter how

intemperate or deprecator+ the utterances

appear to /e, the privile)e is not to /e

defeated nor rendered inutile for, as succinctl+

e2pressed /+ (r. $ustice rennan in New ?or:

#imes v. Sullivan, !Je/ate on pu/lic issues

should /e uninhi/ited, ro/ust and wide open,

and that it ma+ well include vehement, caustic

and sometimes unpleasantl+ sharp attac%s onthe )overnment and pu/lic o;cials. 1

&he Court of Appeals concluded that since

malice is alwa+s presumed in the pu/lication of

defamator+ matters in the a/sence of proof to

the contrar+, the question of privile)e is

immaterial.

e reect this postulate. hile, )enerall+,

malice can /e presumed from defamator+

words, the privile)ed character of acommunication destro+s the presumption of

malice. 2 &he onus of provin) actual malice

then lies on plainti*, private respondent

enceslao herein. e must /rin) home to the

defendant, petitioner oral herein, the

e2istence of malice as the true motive of his

conduct.

(alice connotes ill will or spite and spea%s not

in response to dut+ /ut merel+ to inure the

reputation of the person defamed, and implies

an intention to do ulterior and unusti"a/le



harm. 4 (alice is /ad faith or /ad motive.5 It is

the essence of the crime of li/el.

In the milieu o/tainin), can it /e reasona/l+

inferred that in writin) and pu/lishin) the

articles in question petitioner oral acted with

malice

Primaril+, private respondent failed tosu/stantiate /+ preponderant evidence that

petitioner was animated /+ a desire to

inict un1usti8a-le harm on his reputation, or

that the articles were written and

pu/lished without good motives or 1usti8a-le

ends. 'n the other hand, we "nd petitioner

oral to have acted in )ood faith. (oved /+ a

sense of civic dut+ and prodded /+ his

responsi/ilit+ as a newspaperman, he

proceeded to e2pose and denounce what he

perceived to /e a pu/lic deception. 8urel+, we

cannot /e)rud)e him for that. :ver+ citi=en has

the ri)ht to eno+ a )ood name and reputation,

/ut we do not consider that petitioner oral

has violated that ri)ht in this case nor a/used

his press freedom.

Furthermore, to /e considered malicious, the

li/elous statements must /e shown to have

/een written or pu/lished with the %nowled)e

that the+ are false or in rec%less disre)ard of

whether the+ are false or not. 79ec%less

disre)ard of what is false or not means thatthe defendant entertains serious dou/t as to

the truth of the pu/lication, or that he

possesses a hi)h de)ree of awareness of their

pro/a/le falsit+. 9

&he articles su/ect of the instant case can

hardl+ /e said to have /een written with

%nowled)e that these are false or in rec%less

disre)ard of what is false or not. &his is not to

sa+ however that the ver+ serious alle)ations

of petitioner oral assumed /+ private

respondent to /e directed a)ainst him are true.

ut we nevertheless "nd these at least to have

/een /ased on reasona/le )rounds formed

after the columnist conducted several personal

interviews and after considerin) the varied

documentar+ evidence provided him /+ his

sources. &hus, the followin) are supported /+

documentar+ evidenceB >a@ that private

respondent requested Hloria (acapa)al5

Arro+o, then head of the Harments and &e2tile

:2port oard >H&:@, to e2pedite the

processin) and release of the import approval

and certi"cate of availa/ilit+ of a )arment "rm

in e2chan)e for the monetar+ contri/ution of

$uliano #im, which necessitated a repl+ from

the o;ce of Hloria (acapa)al5Arro+o

e2plainin) the procedure of the H&: in

processin) applications and clarif+in) that all

applicants were treated

equall+0 4/ >/@ that Antonio Periquet was

desi)nated Chairman of the :2ecutive

Committee of the FNC#& notwithstandin) thathe had previousl+ declined the o*er0 41 and, >c@

that despite the fact that then President Aquino

and her 8ecretar+ of &ransportation 9ainerio

9e+es declined the invitation to /e )uest

spea%ers in the conference, their names were

still included in the, printout of the

FNC#&. 42 Added to these are the admissions of

private respondent thatB >a@ he assisted $uliano

#im in his application for a quota allocation

with the H&: in e2chan)e for monetar+

contri/utions to the FNC#&0 4 >/@ he included

the name of then 8ecretar+ of &ransportation

9ainerio 9e+es in the promotional materials of

the conference notwithstandin) the latters

refusal to lend his name to and participate in

the FNC#&0 44 and, >c@ he used di*erent

letterheads and telephone num/ers. 45

:ven assumin) that the contents of the articles

are false, mere error, inaccurac+ or even falsit+

alone does not prove actual malice. :rrors or

misstatements are inevita/le in an+ scheme of

trul+ free e2pression and de/ate. Consistent

with )ood faith and reasona/le care, the press

should not /e held to account, to a point of

suppression, for honest mista%es or

imperfections in the choice of lan)ua)e. &here

must /e some room for misstatement of fact as

well as for misud)ment. 'nl+ /+ )ivin) them

much leewa+ and tolerance can the+

coura)eousl+ and e*ectivel+ function as critical

a)encies in our democrac+. 4 In Bulletin

*u-lishing Corp. v. Noel 47we held V

A newspaper especiall+ one national in reach

and covera)e, should /e free to report on

events and developments in which the pu/lic

has a le)itimate interest with minimum fear of

/ein) hauled to court /+ one )roup or another

on criminal or civil char)es for li/el, so lon) as

the newspaper respects and %eeps within the

standards of moralit+ and civilit+ prevailin)

within the )eneral communit+.

&o avoid the self5censorship that would

necessaril+ accompan+ strict lia/ilit+ for

erroneous statements, rules )overnin) lia/ilit+

for inur+ to reputation are required to allow an

adequate mar)in of error /+ protectin) some

inaccuracies. It is for the same reason that the

New Sor% &imes doctrine requires that lia/ilit+

for defamation of a pu/lic o;cial or pu/lic

")ure ma+ not /e imposed in the a/sence of

proof of actual malice on the part of the

person ma%in) the li/elous statement.

At an+ rate, it ma+ /e salutar+ for private

respondent to ponder upon the advice of (r.

$ustice (alcolm e2pressed in U.S. v.

Bustos, 4 that the interest of societ+ and the

maintenance of )ood )overnment demand a

full discussion of pu/lic a*airs. Complete

li/ert+ to comment on the conduct of pu/lic

men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. &he

sharp incision of its pro/e relieves the

a/scesses of o;cialdom. (en in pu/lic life ma+

su*er under a hostile and unust accusation0



the wound ma+ /e assua)ed /+ the /alm of a

clear conscience. A pu/lic o;cial must not /e

too thin5s%inned with reference to comments

upon his o;cial acts.

&he fore)oin) disposition renders the second

and seventh assi)ned errors moot and

academic, hence, we "nd no necessit+ to pass

upon them.

e must however ta%e this opportunit+ to

li%ewise remind media practitioners of the hi)h

ethical standards attached to and demanded

/+ their no/le profession. &he dan)er of an

un/ridled irrational e2ercise of the ri)ht of free

speech and press, that is, in utter contempt of

the ri)hts of others and in willful disre)ard of

the cum/rous responsi/ilities inherent in it, is

the eventual self5destruction of the ri)ht and

the re)ression of human societ+ into a

verita/le o//esian state of nature where life

is short, nast+ and /rutish. &herefore, to

reco)ni=e that there can /e no a/solute

unrestraint in speech is to trul+ comprehend

the quintessence of freedom in the

mar%etplace of social thou)ht and action,

)enuine freedom /ein) that which is limned /+

the freedom of others. If there is freedom of

the press, ou)ht there not also /e freedom

from the press It is in this sense that self5

re)ulation as distin)uished from self5censorship

/ecomes the ideal mean for, as (r. $usticeFran%furter has warned, Jithout

. . . a livel+ sense of responsi/ilit+, a free press

ma+ readil+ /ecome a powerful instrument of

inustice. 49

#est we /e misconstrued, this is not to diminish

nor constrict that space in which e2pression

freel+ ourishes and operates. For we have

alwa+s stron)l+ maintained, as we do now, that

freedom of e2pression is mans /irthri)ht

5constitutionall+ protected and )uaranteed,

and that it has /ecome the sin)ular role of the

press to act as its defensor "dei in a

democratic societ+ such as ours. ut it is also

worth %eepin) in mind that the press is the

servant, not the master, of the citi=enr+, and

its freedom does not carr+ with it an restricted

huntin) license to pre+ on the ordinar+

citi=en. 5/

'n petitioners counterclaim for dama)es, we"nd the evidence too mea)er to sustain an+

award. Indeed, private respondent cannot /e

said to have instituted the present suit in

a/use of the le)al processes and with hostilit+

to the press0 or that he acted maliciousl+,

wantonl+, oppressivel+, fraudulentl+ and for

the sole purpose of harassin) petitioners,

there/+ entitlin) the latter to dama)es. 'n the

contrar+, private respondent acted within his

ri)hts to protect his honor from what he

perceived to /e malicious imputations a)ainst

him. Proof and motive that the institution of theaction was prompted /+ a sinister desi)n to

ve2 and humiliate a person must /e clearl+ and

preponderantl+ esta/lished to entitle the victim

to dama)es. &he law could not have meant to

impose a penalt+ on the ri)ht to liti)ate, nor

should counsels fees /e awarded ever+ time a

part+ wins a suit. 51

For, concludin) with the wisdom in arren v.

*ulit/er *u-lishing

Co. 52

C

:ver+ man has a ri)ht to

discuss matters of pu/lic

interest. A cler)+man with his

oc%, an admiral with his eet,

a )eneral with his arm+, a

ud)e with his ur+0 we are, all

of us, the su/ect of pu/lic

discussion. &he view of our

court has /een thus statedB It

is onl+ in despotisms that one

must spea%su- rosa, or in

whispers, with /ated /reath,

around the corner, or in the

dar% on a su/ect touchin) the

common welfare. It is the

/ri)htest ewel in the crown of

the law to spea% and maintain

the )olden mean /etween

defamation, on one hand, and

a health+ and ro/ust ri)ht of

free pu/lic discussion, on the

other.

:9:F'9:, the petition is H9AN&:!. &he

!ecision of the Court of Appeals of 3- (arch

16 and its 9esolution of 13 8eptem/er 16

den+in) reconsideration are, 9:G:98:! and

8:& A8I!:, and the complaint for dama)es

a)ainst petitioners is !I8(I88:!. Petitioners

counterclaim for dama)es is li%ewise

!I8(I88:! for lac% of merit. No

costs.;Dwphi;.n@t

8' '9!:9:!.



G.R. No. 15/ Janua0> 2, 2//

MR( *LI'ATI)N(, IN'., MAR( '.LA')N(A6, M6LA '. AGJA and AG(TIN)G. INEGA(, JR.,petitioners,vs.I(LAMI' DAA ')N'IL )F TE*ILI**INE(, IN'., ADLRAMAN R.T.

LIN3AG, IRAIM F.*. AR'ILLA, ADLRA(ID DE G3MAN, AL-FARED DA (ILAand IRAIM .A. JNI), respondents.

ELL)(ILL), J.

" may utterly detest what you write -ut " shall8ght to the death to ma:e it possi-le for you tocontinue writing it. L

Voltaire

G'#&AI9:8 P'N&IFICA# G:98: /estirs oncea)ain the /asic li/erties to free speech and freepress L li/erties that /elon) as well, if notmore, to those who question, who do notconform, who di*er. For the ultimate )oodwhich we all strive to achieve for ourselves andour posterit+ can /etter /e reached /+ a freee2chan)e of ideas, where the /est test of truthis the power of the thou)ht to )et itself accepted in the competition of the free mar%et

L not ust the ideas we desire, /ut includin)those thou)hts we despise.1

I8#A(IC !AA C'DNCI# 'F &: PI#IPPIN:8,INC., a local federation of more than sevent+><@ (uslim reli)ious or)ani=ations, andindividual (uslims A!D#9A(AN 9.&. #INMAH,I9AI( F.P. A9CI##A, A!D# 9A8I! !:HDM(AN, A#5FA9:! !A 8I#GA and I9AI( .A. $DNI', "led in the 9e)ional &rial Court of (anilaa complaint for dama)es in their own /ehalf and as a class suit in /ehalf of the (uslimmem/ers nationwide a)ainst (G98

PD#ICA&I'N8, INC., (A98 C. #AC'N8AS, (S#AC. AHD$A and AHD8&IN' H. IN:HA8, $9.,

arisin) from an article pu/lished in the 1Au)ust 13 issue of ul)ar, a dail+ ta/loid. &he article readsB

$)$M B$ N"N?&

Na ang mga -a-oy at :ahit anong uri ng hayopsa Mindanao ay hindi :ina:ain ng mga Muslim

*ara sa :anila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong-agay. (indi nila ito :ailangang :ainin :ahit nasila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam satuwing sila ay :a:ain. %inagawa nila itong'iyos at sinasam-a pa nila ito sa tuwing arawng :anilang pangingilin lalunglalo na sa arawna tinatawag nilang 4Ramadan4.

&he complaint alle)ed that the li/elousstatement was insultin) and dama)in) to the(uslims0 that these words alludin) to the pi)

as the Hod of the (uslims was not onl+pu/lished out of sheer i)norance /ut withintent to hurt the feelin)s, cast insult anddispara)e the (uslims and Islam, as a reli)ionin this countr+, in violation of law, pu/lic polic+,)ood morals and human relations0 that onaccount of these li/elous words Bulgar insultednot onl+ the (uslims in the Philippines /ut theentire (uslim world, especiall+ ever+ (uslimindividual in non5(uslim countries.

(G98 PD#ICA&I'N8, INC., and AHD8&IN' H.IN:HA8, $9., in their defense, contended that

the article did not mention respondents as theo/ect of the article and therefore were notentitled to dama)es0 and, that the article wasmerel+ an e2pression of /elief or opinion andwas pu/lished without malice nor intention tocause dama)e, preudice or inur+ to (uslims.3

'n ? $une 1- the trial court dismissed thecomplaint holdin) that the plainti*s failed toesta/lish their cause of action since thepersons alle)edl+ defamed /+ the article werenot speci"call+ identi"ed L

It must /e noted that the persons alle)edl+defamed, the herein plainti*s, were notidenti"ed with speci"cit+. &he su/ect articlewas directed at the (uslims withoutmentionin) or identif+in) the herein plainti*s 22 2. It is thus apparent that the alle)ed li/elousarticle refers to the lar)er collectivit+ of (uslims for which the readers of the li/el could

not readil+ identif+ the personalities of thepersons defamed. ence, it is di;cult for anindividual (uslim mem/er to prove that thedefamator+ remar%s appl+ to him. &heevidence presented in this case failed toconvince this court that, indeed, thedefamator+ remar%s reall+ applied to theherein plainti*s.?

'n 3< Au)ust 1E the Court of Appealsreversed the decision of the trial court. Itopined that it was clear from the disputedarticle that the defamation was directed to all

adherents of the Islamic faith. It stated thatpi)s were sacred and idoli=ed as )od /+mem/ers of the (uslim reli)ion. &his li/elousimputation undenia/l+ applied to the plainti*5appellants who are (uslims sharin) the samereli)ious /eliefs. It added that the suit fordama)es was a class suit and that I8#A(IC!AA C'DNCI# 'F &: PI#IPPIN:8, INC.sreli)ious status as a (uslim um/rellaor)ani=ation )ave it the requisite personalit+ tosue and protect the interests of all (uslims.4

ence, the instant petition for review assailin)

the "ndin)s of the appellate court >a@ on thee2istence of the elements of li/el, >/@ the ri)htof respondents to institute the class suit, and,>c@ the lia/ilit+ of petitioners for moraldama)es, e2emplar+ dama)es, attorne+s feesand costs of suit.

!efamation, which includes li/el and slander,means the o*ense of inurin) a personscharacter, fame or reputation throu)h false andmalicious statements.- It is that which tends toinure reputation or to diminish the esteem,respect, )ood will or con"dence in the plainti*

or to e2cite dero)ator+ feelin)s or opinionsa/out the plainti*.6 It is the pu/lication of



an+thin) which is inurious to the )ood name orreputation of another or tends to /rin) him intodisrepute.< !efamation is an invasion of arelational interest since it involves the opinionwhich others in the communit+ ma+ have, ortend to have, of the plainti*.E

It must /e stressed that words which aremerel+ insultin) are not actiona/le as li/el or

slander per se, and mere words of )enerala/use however oppro/rious, ill5natured, orve2atious, whether written or spo%en, do notconstitute a /asis for an action for defamationin the a/sence of an alle)ation for specialdama)es. &he fact that the lan)ua)e iso*ensive to the plainti* does not ma%e itactiona/le /+ itself.1

!eclarations made a/out a lar)e class of people cannot /e interpreted to advert to anidenti"ed or identi"a/le individual. A/sentcircumstances speci"call+ pointin) or alludin)

to a particular mem/er of a class, no mem/erof such class has a ri)ht of action11 without atall impairin) the equall+ demandin) ri)ht of free speech and e2pression, as well as of thepress, under the Bill of Rights.13 &hus,in Newswee: "nc. v. "ntermediate $ppellateCourt ,1? we dismissed a complaint for li/ela)ainst Newswee: "nc., on the )round thatprivate respondents failed to state a cause of action since the+ made no alle)ation in thecomplaint that an+thin) contained in the articlecomplained of speci"call+ referred to an+ of them. Private respondents, incorporatedassociations of su)arcane planters in Ne)ros'ccidental claimin) to have E,- mem/ersand several individual mem/ers, "led a classaction suit for dama)es in /ehalf of allsu)arcane planters in Ne)ros 'ccidental. &hecomplaint "led in the Court of First Instance of acolod Cit+ alle)ed that Newswee%, Inc.,committed li/el a)ainst them /+ thepu/lication of the article Island of Fear in itswee%l+ newsma)a=ine alle)edl+ depictin)Ne)ros Province as a place dominated /+wealth+ landowners and su)ar planters whonot onl+ e2ploited the impoverished andunderpaid su)arcane wor%ers /ut also

/rutali=ed and %illed them with impunit+.

Private respondents alle)ed that the articleshowed a deli/erate and malicious use of falsehood, slanted presentation and7ormisrepresentation of facts intended to put thesu)arcane planters in a /ad li)ht, e2pose themto pu/lic ridicule, discredit and humiliation inthe Philippines and a/road, and ma%e them theo/ects of hatred, contempt and hostilit+ of their a)ricultural wor%ers and of the pu/lic in)eneral. e ratiocinated L

2 2 2 where the defamation is alle)ed to have/een directed at a )roup or class, it is essentialthat the statement must /e so sweepin) or all5em/racin) as to appl+ to ever+ individual inthat )roup or class, or su;cientl+ speci"c sothat each individual in the class or )roup canprove that the defamator+ statementspeci"call+ pointed to him, so that he can /rin)the action separatel+, if need /e 2 2 2 2 &hecase at /ar is not a class suit. It is not a casewhere one or more ma+ sue for the /ene"t of all, or where the representation of class

interest a*ected /+ the ud)ment or decree isindispensa/le to ma%e each mem/er of theclass an actual part+. e have here a casewhere each of the plainti*s has a separate anddistinct reputation in the communit+. &he+ donot have a common or )eneral interest in thesu/ect matter of the controvers+.

In the present case, there was no fairl+identi"a/le person who was alle)edl+ inured/+ the Bulgar article. 8ince the personsalle)edl+ defamed could not /e identi"a/le,private respondents have no individual causesof action0 hence, the+ cannot sue for a classalle)edl+ dispara)ed. Private respondents musthave a cause of action in common with theclass to which the+ /elon) to in order for thecase to prosper.

An individual (uslim has a reputation that ispersonal, separate and distinct in thecommunit+. :ach (uslim, as part of the lar)er(uslim communit+ in the Philippines of over"ve >-@ million people, /elon)s to a di*erenttrade and profession0 each has a var+in)interest and a diver)ent political and reli)iousview L some ma+ /e conservative, others

li/eral. A (uslim ma+ "nd the articledishonora/le, even /lasphemous0 others ma+"nd it as an opportunit+ to stren)then theirfaith and educate the non5/elievers and thein"dels. &here is no inur+ to the reputation of the individual (uslims who constitute thiscommunit+ that can )ive rise to an action for)roup li/el. :ach reputation is personal incharacter to ever+ person. &o)ether, the(uslims do not have a sin)le common

reputation that will )ive them a common or)eneral interest in the su/ect matter of thecontrovers+.

In $rcand v. #he Evening Call *u-lishingCompany ,14 the Dnited 8tates Court of Appealsheld that one )uidin) principle of )roup li/el isthat defamation of a large group does not giverise to a cause of action on the part of anindividual unless it can -e shown that he is thetarget of the defamatory matter .

&he rule on li/el has /een restrictive. In anAmerican case,1- a person had alle)edl+committed li/el a)ainst all persons of the $ewish reli)ion. &he Court held that there could/e no li/el a)ainst an e2tensive communit+ incommon law. In an :n)lish case, where li/elconsisted of alle)ations of immoralit+ in aCatholic nunner+, the Court considered that if the li/el were on the whole 9oman CatholicChurch )enerall+, then the defendant must /ea/solved.16 ith re)ard to the lar)est sectors insociet+, includin) reli)ious )roups, it ma+ /e)enerall+ concluded that no criminal action atthe /ehest of the state, or civil action on /ehalf of the individual, will lie.

In another case, the plainti*s claimed that all(uslims, num/erin) more than 6 million,were defamed /+ the airin) of a nationaltelevision /roadcast of a "lm depictin) thepu/lic e2ecution of a 8audi Ara/ian princessaccused of adulter+, and alle)in) that such "lmwas insultin) and defamator+ to the Islamicreli)ion.1< &he Dnited 8tates !istrict Court of the Northern !istrict of California concludedthat the plainti*s pra+er for W3 illion indama)es arisin) from an internationalconspirac+ to insult, ridicule, discredit and



a/use followers of Islam throu)hout the world,Ara/s and the Oin)dom of 8audi Ara/ia/ordered on the frivolous, rulin) that theplainti*s had failed to demonstrate anactiona/le claim for defamation. &he CaliforniaCourt stressed that the aim of the law ondefamation was to protect individuals0 a )roupma+ /e su;cientl+ lar)e that a statementconcernin) it could not defame individual)roup mem/ers.1E

Philip itten/er), in his /oo% 'angerousords $ %uide to the )aw of )i-el ,1 discussesthe inappropriateness of an+ action for tortiousli/el involvin) lar)e )roups, and provides asuccinct illustrationB

&here are )roupin)s which ma+ /e "niteenou)h so that a description of the /od+ is adescription of the mem/ers. ere the pro/lemis merel+ one of evaluation. Is the descriptionof the mem/er implicit in the description of the

/od+, or is there a possi/ilit+ that a descriptionof the /od+ ma+ consist of a variet+ of persons,those included within the char)e, and thosee2cluded from it

A )eneral char)e that the law+ers in the cit+are sh+sters would o/viousl+ not /e a char)ethat all of the law+ers were sh+sters. A char)ethat the law+ers in a local point in a )reat cit+,such as &imes 8quare in New Sor% Cit+, weresh+sters would o/viousl+ not include all of thelaw+ers who practiced in that district0 /ut astatement that all of the law+ers who practiced

in a particular /uildin) in that district weresh+sters would /e a speci"c char)e, so thatan+ law+er havin) an o;ce within that /uildin)could sue.

If the )roup is a ver+ lar)e one, then thealle)ed li/elous statement is considered tohave no application to an+one in particular,since one mi)ht as well defame all man%ind.Not onl+ does the )roup as such have noaction0 the plainti* does not esta/lish an+personal reference to himself.3 At present,modern societal )roups are /oth numerous and

comple2. &he same principle follows with these)roupsB as the si=e of these )roups increases,

the chances for mem/ers of such )roups torecover dama)es on tortious li/el /ecomeelusive. &his principle is said to em/race two>3@ important pu/lic policiesB 8rst , where the)roup referred to is lar)e, the courts presumethat no reasona/le reader would ta%e thestatements as so literall+ appl+in) to eachindividual mem/er0 and second, the limitationon lia/ilit+ would satisfactoril+ safe)uardfreedom of speech and e2pression, as well as

of the press, e*ectin) a sound compromise/etween the conictin) fundamental interestsinvolved in li/el cases.31

In the instant case, the (uslim communit+ istoo vast as to readil+ ascertain who amon) the(uslims were particularl+ defamed. &he si=e of the )roup renders the reference asindeterminate and )eneric as a similar attac%on Catholics, Protestants, uddhists or(ormons would do. &he word (uslim isdescriptive of those who are /elievers of Islam,a reli)ion divided into var+in) sects, such as

the 8unnites, the 8hiites, the Ohariites, the8u"s and others /ased upon political andtheolo)ical distinctions. (uslim is a namewhich descri/es onl+ a )eneral se)ment of thePhilippine population, comprisin) ahetero)eneous /od+ whose construction is notso well de"ned as to render it impossi/le foran+ representative identi"cation.

&he Christian reli)ion in the Philippines isli%ewise divided into di*erent sectsB Catholic,aptist, :piscopalian, Pres/+terian, #utheran,and other )roups the essence of which ma+ liein an inspired charlatan, whose temple ma+ /ea corner house in the fr in)es of thecountr+side. As with the Christian reli)ion, so itis with other reli)ions that represent thenations culturall+ diverse people and ministerto each ones spiritual needs. &he (uslimpopulation ma+ /e divided into smaller )roupswith var+in) a)enda, from the pra+erfulconservative to the passionatel+ radical. &hesedivisions in the (uslim population ma+ still /etoo lar)e and am/i)uous to provide areasona/le inference to an+ personalit+ whocan /rin) a case in an action for li/el.

&he fore)oin) are in essence the same viewscholarl+ e2pressed /+ (r. $ustice 9e+nato 8.Puno in the course of the deli/erations in thiscase. e e2tensivel+ reproduce hereunder hiscomprehensive and penetratin) discussion on)roup li/el L

!efamation is made up of the twin torts of li/eland slander L the one /ein), in )eneral,written, while the other in )eneral is oral. Ineither form, defamation is an invasion of theinterest in reputation and )ood name. &his is arelational interest since it involves theopinion others in the communit+ ma+ have, ortend to have of the plainti*.

&he law of defamation protects the interest inreputation L the interest in acquirin), retainin)and eno+in) ones reputation as )ood as onescharacter and conduct warrant. &he mere factthat the plainti*s feelin)s and sensi/ilitieshave /een o*ended is not enou)h to create a

cause of action for defamation. !efamationrequires that somethin) /e communicated to athird person that ma+ a*ect the opinion othersma+ have of the plainti*. &he unprivile)edcommunication must /e shown of a statementthat would tend to hurt plainti*s reputation, toimpair plainti*s standin) in the communit+.

Althou)h the )ist of an action for defamation isan inur+ to reputation, the focus of adefamation action is upon the alle)edl+defamator+ statement itself and its predicta/lee*ect upon third persons. A statement is

ordinaril+ considered defamator+ if it tendsJto e2pose one to pu/lic hatred, shame,o/loqu+, contumel+, odium, contempt, ridicule,aversion, ostracism, de)radation or dis)race2 22. &he 9estatement of &orts de"nes adefamator+ statement as one that tends to soharm the reputation of another as to lower himin the estimation of the communit+ or to deterthird persons from associatin) or dealin) withhim.

Consequentl+ as a prerequisite to recover+, it isnecessar+ for the plainti* to prove as part of

his prima faciecase that the defendant >1@



such speech on the same )round asdefamation of an individual.

e do not a)ree to the contrar+ viewarticulated in the immediatel+ precedin)para)raph. Primaril+, an emotional distresstort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civilaction "led /+ an individual34 to assua)e theinuries to his emotional tranquilit+ due topersonal attac%s on his character. It has noapplication in the instant case since noparticular individual was identi"ed in thedisputed article of Bulgar . Also, the purporteddama)e caused /+ the article, assumin) therewas an+, falls under the principle of relationalharm L which includes harm to socialrelationships in the communit+ in the form of defamation0 as distin)uished from the principleof reactive harm L which includes inuries toindividual emotional tranquilit+ in the form of an inFiction of emotional distress. In theircomplaint, respondents clearl+ asserted analle)ed harm to the standin) of (uslims in the

communit+, especiall+ to their activities inpropa)atin) their faith in (etro (anila and inother non5(uslim communities in thecountr+.3-It is thus /e+ond cavil that thepresent case falls within the application of the relational harm principle of tort actions fordefamation, rather than the reactive harm principle on which the concept of emotionaldistress properl+ /elon)s.

(oreover, under the Second Restatement of the )aw, to recover for the intentional inictionof emotional distress the plainti* must showthatB >a@ &he conduct of the defendant wasintentional or in rec%less disre)ard of theplainti*0 >/@ &he conduct was e2treme andoutra)eous0 >c@ &here was a causal connection/etween the defendants conduct and theplainti*s mental distress0 and, >d@ &heplainti*s mental distress was e2treme andsevere.36

:2treme and outra)eous conduct meansconduct that is so outra)eous in character, andso e2treme in de)ree, as to )o /e+ond allpossi/le /ounds of decenc+, and to /ere)arded as atrocious, and utterl+ intolera/le in

civili=ed societ+. &he defendants actions musthave /een so terrif+in) as naturall+ tohumiliate, em/arrass or fri)hten theplainti*.3< Henerall+, conduct will /e found to/e actiona/le where the recitation of the factsto an avera)e mem/er of the communit+would arouse his resentment a)ainst the actor,and lead him or her to e2claim, 'utra)eousXas his or her reaction.3E

:motional distress means an+ hi)hl+unpleasant mental reaction such as e2treme)rief, shame, humiliation, em/arrassment,an)er, disappointment, worr+, nausea, mentalsu*erin) and an)uish, shoc%, fri)ht, horror, andcha)rin.3 8evere emotional distress, in some urisdictions, refers to an+ t+pe of severe anddisa/lin) emotional or mental condition whichma+ /e )enerall+ reco)ni=ed and dia)nosed /+professionals trained to do so, includin)posttraumatic stress disorder, neurosis,ps+chosis, chronic depression, or pho/ia.? &heplainti* is required to show, amon) other

thin)s, that he or she has su*ered emotionaldistress so severe that no reasona/le personcould /e e2pected to endure it0 severity of thedistress is an element of the cause of actionnot simply a matter of damages.?1

An+ part+ see%in) recover+ for mental an)uishmust prove more than mere worr+, an2iet+,ve2ation, em/arrassment, or an)er. #ia/ilit+does not arise from mere insults, indi)nities,threats, anno+ances, pett+ e2pressions, orother trivialities. In determinin) whether thetort of outra)e had /een committed, a plainti* is necessaril+ e2pected and required to /ehardened to a certain amount of criticism,rou)h lan)ua)e, and to occasional acts andwords that are de"nitel+ inconsiderate andun%ind0 the mere fact that the actor %nows thatthe other will re)ard the conduct as insultin),or will have his feelin)s hurt, is not enou)h.?3

(ustler Maga/ine v. !alwell?? illustrates the testcase of a civil action for dama)es onintentional iniction of emotional distress. Aparod+ appeared in ustler ma)a=ine featurin)the American fundamentalist preacher andevan)elist 9everend $err+ Falwell depictin) him

in an ine/riated state havin) an incestuous,se2ual liaison with his mother in an outhouse.Falwell sued ustler and its pu/lisher #arr+Fl+nt for dama)es. &he Dnited 8tates !istrictCourt for the estern !istrict of Gir)inia ruledthat the parod+ was not li/elous, /ecause noreasona/le reader would have understood it asa factual assertion that Falwell en)a)ed in theact descri/ed. &he ur+, however, awardedW3, in dama)es on a separate count of

intentional iniction of emotional distress, acause of action that did not require a falsestatement of fact to /e made. &he Dnited8tates 8upreme Court in a unanimous decisionoverturned the ur+ verdict of the Gir)inia Courtand held that Reverend !alwell may not recover for intentional inFiction of emotionaldistress. It was ar)ued that the material mi)ht/e deemed outra)eous and ma+ have /eenintended to cause severe emotional distress,/ut these circumstances were not su;cient toovercome the free speech ri)hts )uaranteedunder the First Amendment of the Dnited

8tates Constitution. 8impl+ stated, anintentional tort causin) emotional distressmust necessaril+ )ive wa+ to the fundamentalri)ht to free speech.

It must /e o/served that althou)h Falwell wasre)arded /+ the D.8. i)h Court as a pu/lic")ure, he was anindividual particularly singledout or identi8ed in the parod+ appearin) onustler ma)a=ine. Also, the emotional distressalle)edl+ su*ered /+ 9everend Falwell involveda reactive interest L an emotional response tothe parod+ which supposedl+ inured his

ps+cholo)ical well5/ein).

Geril+, our position is clear that the conduct of petitioners was not e2treme or outra)eous.Neither was the emotional distress alle)edl+su*ered /+ respondents so severe that noreasona/le person could /e e2pected to endureit. &here is no evidence on record that points tothat result.

Professor illiam Prosser, views tort actions onintentional iniction of emotional distress inthis manner?4 L



&here is virtuall+ unanimous a)reement thatsuch ordinar+ defendants are not lia/le formere insult, indi)nit+, anno+ance, or eventhreats, where the case is lac%in) in othercircumstances of a))ravation. &he reasons arenot far to see%. 'ur manners, and with themour law, have not +et pro)ressed to the pointwhere we are a/le to a*ord a remed+ in theform of tort dama)es for all intended mentaldistur/ance. #ia/ilit+ of course cannot /e

e2tended to ever+ trivial indi)nit+ 2 2 2 2 &heplainti* must necessaril+ /e e2pected andrequired to /e hardened to a certain amount of rou)h lan)ua)e, and to acts that are de"nitel+inconsiderate and un%ind 2 2 2 &he plainti* cannot recover merel+ /ecause of hurtfeelin)s.

Professor Calvert (a)ruder reinforces Prosserwith this succinct o/servation, vi/ B?-

&here is no occasion for the law to

intervene in ever+ case wheresomeones feelin)s are hurt. &heremust still /e freedom to e2press anunatterin) opinion, and some safet+valve must /e left throu)h whichirasci/le tempers ma+ /low o* relativel+ harmless steam.

&hus, it is evident that even American courtsare reluctant to adopt a rule of recover+ foremotional harm that would open up a widevista of liti)ation in the "eld of /ad manners,an area in which a tou)henin) of the mental

hide was thou)ht to /e a more appropriateremed+.?6 Perhaps of )reater concern were thequestions of causation, proof, and the a/ilit+ toaccuratel+ assess dama)es for emotionalharm, each of which continues to concerncourts toda+.?<

In this connection, the doctrinesin Chaplins:y and Beauharnais had lar)el+/een superseded /+ su/sequent FirstAmendment doctrines. ac% in simpler times inthe histor+ of free e2pression the 8upremeCourt appeared to espouse a theor+, %nown as

the #woClass #heory , that treated certaint+pes of e2pression as ta/oo forms of speech,

/eneath the di)nit+ of the First Amendment. &he most cele/rated statement of this viewwas e2pressed in Chaplins:y B

&here are certain well5de"ned and narrowl+limited classes of speech, the prevention andpunishment of which have never /een thou)htto raise an+ Constitutional pro/lem. &heseinclude the lewd and o/scene, the profane, theli/elous, and the insultin) or ")htin) words Lthose which /+ their ver+ utterance inictinur+ or tend to incite an immediate /reach of the peace. It has /een well o/served that suchutterances are no essential part of an+e2position of ideas, and are of such sli)htsocial value as a step to truth that an+ /ene"tthat ma+ /e derived from them is clearl+outwei)hed /+ the social interest in order andmoralit+.

&oda+, however, the theor+ is no lon)er via/le0modern First Amendment principles have

passed it /+. American courts no lon)er acceptthe view that speech ma+ /e proscri/ed merel+/ecause it is lewd, profane, insultin) orotherwise vul)ar or o*ensive.?E Cohen v.California? is illustrativeB Paul 9o/ert Cohenwore a ac%et /earin) the words Fuc% the!raft in a #os An)eles courthouse in April16E, which caused his eventual arrest. Cohenwas convicted for violatin) a California statuteprohi/itin) an+ person from distur/in)J thepeace 2 2 2 /+ o*ensive conduct. &he D.8.8upreme Court conceded that Cohense2pletive contained in his ac%et was vul)ar,/ut it concluded that his speech was

nonetheless protected /+ the ri)ht to freespeech. It was neither considered anincitement to ille)al action nor o/scenit+. Itdid not constitute insultin) or ")htin) wordsfor it had not /een directed at a person whowas li%el+ to retaliate or at someone who couldnot avoid the messa)e. In other words, no onewas present in the #os An)eles courthouse whowould have re)arded Cohens speech as adirect personal insult, nor was there an+dan)er of reactive violence a)ainst him.

No speci8c individual was targeted in theallegedly defamatory words printed on Cohen4s

1ac:et . &he conviction could onl+ /e usti"ed /+Californias desire to e2ercise the /road powerin preservin) the cleanliness of discourse in thepu/lic sphere, which the D.8. 8upreme Courtrefused to )rant to the 8tate, holdin) that noo/ective distinctions can /e made /etweenvul)ar and nonvul)ar speech, and that theemotive elements of speech are ust asessential in the e2ercise of this ri)ht as thepurel+ co)nitive. As (r. $ustice arlan so

eloquentl+ wroteB 'Jne mans vul)arit+ isanother mans l+ric 2 2 2 words are oftenchosen as much for their emotive as theirco)nitive force.4 ith Cohen, the D.8.8upreme Court "nall+ laid the Constitutionalfoundation for udicial protection of provocativeand potentiall+ o*ensive speech.

8imilarl+, li/elous speech is no lon)er outsidethe First Amendment protection. 'nl+ onesmall piece of the #woClass#heory in Chaplins:y survives L D.8. courtscontinue to treat o/scene speech as not

within the protection of the First Amendment atall. ith respect to the ")htin) wordsdoctrine, while it remains alive it was modi"ed/+ the current ri)orous clear and presentdan)er test.41 &hus, in Cohen the D.8. 8upremeCourt in appl+in) the test held that there wasno showin) that Cohens ac%et /earin) thewords Fuc% the !raft had threatened toprovo%e imminent violence0 and that protectin)the sensi/ilities of onloo%ers was notsu;cientl+ compellin) interest to restrainCohens speech.

Beauharnais, which closel+ followedthe Chaplins:y doctrine, su*ered the same fateas Chaplins:y . Indeed, whenBeauharnais wasdecided in 1-3, the &wo5Class &heor+ was stillourishin). hile concededl+ the D.8. i)h &ri/unal did not formall+ a/andon Beauharnais,the seminal shifts in D.8. constitutional urisprudence su/stantiall+undercut Beauharnais and seriousl+undermined what is left of its vitalit+ as aprecedent. Amon) the cases that dealt acrushin) impact on Beauharnais and renderedit almost certainl+ a dead letter case law

are Branden-urg v. &hio,43 and, a)ain, Cohen v.



California.4? &hese decisions reco)ni=e a muchnarrower set of permissi/le )rounds forrestrictin) speech than did Beauharnais.44

In Branden-urg, appellant who was a leader of the Ou Olu2 Olan was convicted under the 'hioCriminal 8+ndicalism 8tatute for advocatin) thenecessit+, dut+ and propriet+ of crime,sa/ota)e, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishin)industrial or political reforms0 and forvoluntaril+ assem/lin) with a )roup formed toteach or advocate the doctrines of criminals+ndicalism. Appellant challen)ed the statuteand was sustained /+ the D.8. 8upreme Court,holdin) that the advocac+ of ille)al action/ecomes punisha/le onl+ if such advocacy isdirected to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is li:ely to incite or producesuch action.4- :2cept in unusualinstances, Branden-urg protects the advocac+of lawlessness as lon) as such speech is nottranslated into action.

&he importance of the Branden-urg rulin)cannot /e overemphasi=ed. Prof. 8mollaa;rmed that Branden-urgmust /e understoodas overrulin) Beauharnais and eliminatin) thepossi/ilit+ of treatin) )roup li/el under thesame First Amendment standards as individualli/el.46 It ma+ well /e considered as one of thel+nchpins of the modern doctrine of freespeech, which see%s to )ive special protectionto politicall+ relevant speech.

In an+ case, respondents lac% of cause of action cannot /e cured /+ the "lin) of a classsuit. As correctl+ pointed out /+ (r. $ustice $oseC. Gitu) durin) the deli/erations, an elementof a class suit is the adequac+ of representation. In determinin) the question of fair and adequate representation of mem/ersof a class, the court must consider >a@ whetherthe interest of the named part+ is coe2tensivewith the interest of the other mem/ers of theclass0 >/@ the proportion of those made partiesas it so /ears to the total mem/ership of theclass0 and, >c@ an+ other factor /earin) on thea/ilit+ of the named part+ to spea% for the restof the class.4<

&he rules require that courts must ma%e surethat the persons intervenin) should /esu;cientl+ numerous to full+ protect theinterests of all concerned. In the presentcontrovers+, Islamic !awah Council of thePhilippines, Inc., see%s in e*ect to assert theinterests not onl+ of the (uslims in thePhilippines /ut of the whole (uslim world aswell. Private respondents o/viousl+ lac% thesu;cienc+ of num/ers to represent such a

)lo/al )roup0 neither have the+ /een a/le todemonstrate the identit+ of their interests withthose the+ see% to represent. Dnless it can /eshown that there can /e a safe )uarant+ thatthose a/sent will /e adequatel+ represented /+those present, a class suit, )iven its ma)nitudein this instance, would /e unavailin).4E

#i%ewise on the matter of dama)es, we a)reethat moral dama)es ma+ /e recovered onl+ if the plainti* is a/le to satisfactoril+ prove thee2istence of the factual /asis for the dama)esand its causal connection with the acts

complained of,4 and so it must /e, as moraldama)es althou)h incapa/le of pecuniar+estimation are desi)ned not to impose apenalt+ /ut to compensate for inur+ sustainedand actual dama)es su*ered.- :2emplar+dama)es, on the other hand, ma+ onl+ /eawarded if claimant is a/le to esta/lish hisri)ht to moral, temperate, liquidated orcompensator+ dama)es.-1 Dnfortunatel+,neither of the requirements to sustain anaward for either of these dama)es wouldappear to have /een adequatel+ esta/lished /+respondents.

In a pluralistic societ+ li%e the Philippineswhere misinformation a/out anotherindividuals reli)ion is as commonplace as self5appointed critics of )overnment, it would /emore appropriate to respect the fair criticism of reli)ious principles, includin) those which ma+/e outra)eousl+ appallin), immensel+erroneous, or those couched as fairl+informative comments. &he )reater dan)er inour societ+ is the possi/ilit+ that it ma+encoura)e the frequenc+ of suits amon)reli)ious fundamentalists, whether Christian,

(uslim, indu, uddhist, $ewish, or others. &his

would unnecessaril+ ma%e the civil courts a/attle)round to assert their spiritual ideas, andadvance their respective reli)ious a)enda.

It need not /e stressed that this Court has nopower to determine which is proper reli)iousconduct or /elief0 neither does it have theauthorit+ to rule on the merits of one reli)ionover another, nor declare which /elief touphold or cast asunder, for the validit+ of reli)ious /eliefs or values are outside thesphere of the udiciar+. 8uch matters are /etterleft for the reli)ious authorities to address whatis ri)htfull+ within their doctrine and realm of inuence. Courts must /e viewpoint5neutralwhen it comes to reli)ious matters if onl+ toa;rm the neutralit+ principle of free speechri)hts under modern urisprudence where aJllideas are treated equal in the e+es of the FirstAmendment L even those ideas that areuniversall+ condemned and run counter toconstitutional principles.-3 Dnder the ri)ht tofree speech, there is no such thin) as a false

idea. owever pernicious an opinion ma+seem, we depend for its correction not on theconscience of ud)es and uries /ut on thecompetition of otherideas.-? 'enying certiorari and a;rmin) theappellate court decision would surel+ create achillin) e*ect on the constitutional )uaranteesof freedom of speech, of e2pression, and of thepress.

:9:F'9:, the petition is H9AN&:!. &heassailed !ecision of the Court of Appeals dated3< Au)ust 1E is 9:G:98:! and 8:& A8I!:,

and the !ecision of the 9&C5r. 4, (anila,dismissin) the complaint for lac% of merit, is9:IN8&A&:! and AFFI9(:!. Nopronouncement as to costs.

8' '9!:9:!.



G.R. No. 1472 D%8%?@%0 1, 2//5*ILI**INE J)RNALI(T(, IN'. :*E)*LE(

J)RNAL;, 3A'ARIA( NGID, JR. and'RI(TINA LEE,*%t#t#on%0s,&s.FRAN'I( T)ENEN, R%s!ond%nt.'I')-NA3ARI), J.

For almost a centur+, this Court has sou)ht

that elusive equili/rium /etween the law ondefamation on one hand, and the

constitutionall+ )uaranteed freedoms of

speech and press on the other. &his case

revisits that search.

'n ? 8eptem/er 1, the followin) news

item appeared in the PeopleYs $ournal, a ta/loid

of )eneral circulationB

(#ss (oots N%#g@o0s *%ts

9:8I!:N&8 of a su/division in Paraaque have

as%ed the ureau of Immi)ration to deport a

8wiss who alle)edl+ shoots wa+ward

nei)h/orsY pets that he "nds in his domain.

&he F omes residents throu)h law+er Att+.

:fren An)ara complained that the deportation

of Francis &hoenen, of 1 Calcutta F omes

Phase III, could help prevent the recurrence of

such incident in the future.

An)ara e2plained that house owners could not

control their do)s and cats when the+ slip out

of their dwellin)s unnoticed.

An alle)ed confrontation /etween &hoenen and

the owner of a pet he shot recentl+ threatens

to e2acer/ate the pro/lem, An)ara said.

Cristina #ee1

&he su/ect of this article, Francis &hoenen, is a

retired en)ineer permanentl+ residin) in this

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_143372_2005.html#fnt1




countr+ with his Filipina wife and their children.

Claimin) that the report was false and

defamator+, and that the petitioners acted

irresponsi/l+ in failin) to verif+ the truth of the

same prior to pu/lication, he "led a civil case

for dama)es a)ainst herein petitioners

Philippine $ournalists, Inc., Macarias Nu)uid, $r.,

its pu/lisher, and reporter Cristina #ee.

&hoenen claimed that the article destro+ed the

respect and admiration he eno+ed in the

communit+, and that since it had /een

pu/lished, he and his wife received several

queries and an)r+ calls from friends, nei)h/ors

and relatives. For the impairment of his

reputation and standin) in the communit+, and

his mental an)uish, &hoenen

sou)ht P3,. in moral

dama)es, P1,. in e2emplar+ dama)es,

and P-,. in attorne+Ys fees.

&he petitioners admitted pu/lication of the

news item, ostensi/l+ out of a social and

moral dut+ to inform the pu/lic on matters of

)eneral interest, promote the pu/lic )ood and

protect the moral pu/lic >sic3 of the people,

and that the stor+ was pu/lished in )ood faith

and without malice.3

&he principal source of the article was a

letter? /+ a certain Att+. :fren An)ara

addressed to Commissioner Andrea !omin)o of the Commission on Immi)ration and

!eportation >CI!, now ureau of Immi)ration@,

which statesB

!ear (adameB

e would li%e to request +our o;ce to verif+

the true status7authenticit+ of the residenc+ in

the Philippines of a forei)n national >a 8wiss@

/+ the name of Francis &hoenen who is

presentl+ residin) at No. 1 Calcuta cor. eirut

8treet, F omes >P. III@, Paraaque, (etro

(anila. I received >sic@ complaint from m+

clients residin) around his vicinit+ that this

forei)ner had >sic@ /een causin) trou/les ever

since he showed up. e is too meticulous and

had >sic@ /een shootin) do)s and cats passin)

his house wall ever+time.

8uch act which >sic@ is unaccepta/le to the

owners especiall+ if inspite >sic@ of control their

pets slips >sic@ out unnoticed. A confrontation

/etween him and the owner of the do) he

shoot, >sic@ alread+ occurred last time. In some

instances this )u+ had /een alwa+s drivin) his

car /ar/arousl+ inside the su/division with

children pla+in) around >sic@ the street. efore

m+ clients petitioned themselves with the

endorsement of the omeowners Association

and "led to +our o;ce for deportation weYre

respectfull+ see%in) +our assistance to

investi)ate this alien to prevent further

incident occurrence >sic@ in the future. eshould not /e allowed to dominate the citi=ens

of this countr+.

Ger+ trul+ +ours,

Att+. :fren . An)ara

&he petitioners claim that #ee, as the reporter

assi)ned to cover news events in the CI!,

acquired a cop+ of the a/ove letter from a

trusted source in the CI!Ys Intelli)ence!ivision. &he+ claimed to have reasona/le

)rounds to /elieve in the truth and veracit+ of

the information derived >from their@ sources.4

It was proven at trial that the news article

contained several inaccuracies. &he headline,

which cate)oricall+ stated that the su/ect of

the article en)a)ed in the practice of shootin)

pets, was untrue.- (oreover, it is immediatel+

apparent from a comparison /etween the

a/ove letter and the news item in question that

while the letter is a mere request for

veri"cation of &hoenenYs status, #ee wrote that

residents of F omes had as%ed the ureau

of Immi)ration to deport a 8wiss who alle)edl+

shoots nei)h/orsY pets. No complaints had in

fact /een lod)ed a)ainst him /+ an+ of the F

omeowners,6 nor had an+ pendin)

deportation proceedin)s /een initiated a)ainst

him in the ureau of Immi)ration.<

&hoenen also su/mitted a Certi"cationE from

the ';ce of the ar Con"dant that there was

no law+er in its rolls /+ the name of :fren

An)ara, earlier cited /+ petitioner #ee as the

author of the letter on which she /ased her

article. Finall+, the trial also showed that

despite the fact that respondentYs address was

indicated in the letter, Cristina #ee made no

e*orts to contact either him or the purported

letter5writer, Att+. An)ara.

&he petitioners claim that #ee sou)htcon"rmation of the stor+ from the newspaperYs

correspondent in Paraaque, who told her that

a woman who refused to identif+ herself

con"rmed that there had indeed /een an

incident of pet5shootin) in the nei)h/orhood

involvin) the respondent.1 owever, the

correspondent in question was never presented

in court to verif+ the truth of this alle)ation.

Neither was the alle)ed CI! source presented

to verif+ that the a/ove letter had indeed come

from the !epartment, nor even that the samewas a certi"ed true cop+ of a letter on "le in

their o;ce.

'n ?1 Au)ust 14, the 9e)ional &rial Court,

ranch 63, (a%ati Cit+, rendered a !ecision11 in

favor of the petitioners, which reads in partB

&here is no malice on the part of the

defendants in pu/lishin) the news item done in

the e2ercise of their profession as ournalists

reportin) to the people on matters of pu/lic

interest. &he news report was /ased on an

























o;cial communication "led with the ureau of

Immi)ration and !eportation.

As noted /+ the Court of Appeals in (arti>r@e=

vs. Alanao, CA5H.9 No. 3<E6, 8eptem/er ?,

11, which is similar to the present caseB

hile indeed, the news item su/ect of the

present case mi)ht have ruUed thesensitivities of plainti*, this Court however

/elieves that the alle)ed defamator+ articles

falls within the purview of a quali"edl+

privile)ed matter, and that therefore, it cannot

/e presumed to /e malicious. &he onus of

provin) malice is accordin)l+ shifted to the

plainti*, that is, that he must prove that the

defendants were actuated /+ ill5will in what

the+ caused to /e printed and pu/lished, with a

desi)n to carelessl+ or wantonl+ inure the

plainti*. >D8 vs. ustos, et al., ?< Phil. <?1@

&his, plainti* failed to do, consequentl+, his

case must fall.

&he pu/lication in question is a privile)ed

communication protected /+ the freedom of

the press.

:9:F'9:, the Complaint is here/+ ordered

!I8(I88:! I&'D& P9'N'DNC:(:N& A8 &'

C'8&8.13

'n appeal, the court a quo reversed1? the trial

court. It held that althou)h freedom of

e2pression and the ri)ht of speech and of the

press are amon) the most =ealousl+ )uarded in

the Constitution, still, in the e2ercise of these

ri)hts, Article 1 of the Civil Code requires

ever+one to act with ustice, )ive ever+one his

due, and o/serve honest+ and )ood faith. &he

appellate court emphasi=ed that &hoenen was

neither a pu/lic o;cial nor a pu/lic ")ure, and

thus,

. . . :Jven without malice on the part of

defendants5appellees, the news item pu/lished

in the ? 8eptem/er 1 edition of PeopleYs

$ournal had /een done in violation of the

principle of a/use of ri)ht under Article 1 of

the Civil Code, in the a/sence of a /ona "de

e*ort to ascertain the truth thereof, i.e., to

o/serve honest+ and )ood faith, which ma%es

their act a wron)ful omission. Neither did the+

act with ustice and )ive ever+one his due,

/ecause without ascertainin) the veracit+ of

the information )iven them /+ the Intelli)ence

ureau of the ureau of Immi)ration, the+

pu/lished a news article which the+ were

aware would /rin) the person speci"call+

named therein, vi=, Francis &hoenen, the

plainti*5appellant in this case, into disrepute.

Z.

:9:F'9:, the fore)oin) considered, the!ecision appealed from is here/+ 9:G:98:!

and 8:& A8I!:. In its stead, e "nd for the

appellant and award him moral dama)es

of P3,.0 e2emplar+ dama)es

ofP-,., and le)al fees to P?,.0 all

of which shall /e /orne ointl+ and severall+ /+

appellees.14

PetitionersY motion for reconsideration havin)

/een denied,1- this petition for certiorari under

9ule 4- of the 1< 9ules of Civil Procedurewas "led on the followin) )roundsB

1. &he Court of Appeals erred in "ndin) the

petitioners Cristina #ee, Nu)uid and P$I lia/le

under Article 1 of the Civil Code.

3. &he Court of Appeals erred in "ndin) the

petitioners lia/le for li/el even if the article was

/ased on a letter released /+ the ureau of

Immi)ration, hence a quali"ed privile)e

communication.

?. &he Court of Appeals erred in concludin)

that petitioners did not ascertain the truth of

the su/ect news item.

4. &he Court of Appeals erred in awardin)

dama)es notwithstandin) that the same was

e2cessive unconsciona/le and devoid of an+

/asis.

&he petitioners ar)ue that this case is one for

dama)es arisin) from li/el, and not one for

a/use of ri)hts under the New Civil Code. &he+

further claim the constitutional protections

e2tended /+ the freedom of speech and of the

press clause of the 1E< Constitution a)ainst

lia/ilit+ for li/el, claimin) that the article was

pu/lished in ful"llment of its social and moral

dut+ to inform the pu/lic on matters of

)eneral interest, promote the pu/lic )ood and

protect the moral fa/ricJ of the people.16 &he+

insist that the news article was /ased on aletter released /+ the ureau of Immi)ration,

and is thus a qual i"edl+ privile)ed

communication. &o recover dama)es, the

respondent must prove its pu/lication was

attended /+ actual malice 5 that is, with

%nowled)e that it was false or with rec%less

disre)ard of whether it was false or not.1<

For the reasons stated /elow, we hold that the

constitutional privile)e )ranted under the

freedom of speech and the press a)ainstlia/ilit+ for dama)es does not e2tend to the

petitioners in this case.

#he freedom of speech and of the press is not

a-solute. &he freedom of speech and press and

assem/l+, "rst laid down /+ President (cOinle+

in the Instruction to the 8econd Philippine

Commission of < April 1, is an

almost ver-atim restatement of the "rst

amendment of the Constitution of the Dnited

8tates.1E :nshrined in 8ection 4, Article III of

the ill of 9i)hts of the 1E< Constitution, it




















states, No law shall /e passed a/rid)in) the

freedom of speech, of e2pression, or of the

press, or the ri)ht of the people peacea/l+ to

assem/le and petition the )overnment for

redress of )rievances.

ut not all speech is protected. &he ri)ht of

free speech is not a/solute at all times and

under all circumstances. &here are certain well5

de"ned and narrowl+ limited classes of speech,

the prevention and punishment of which has

never /een thou)ht to raise an+ Constitutional

pro/lem. &hese include the lewd and o/scene,

the profane, the li/elous, and the insultin) or

[")htin)Y words 5 those which /+ their ver+

utterance inict inur+ or tend to incite an

immediate /reach of the peace. It has /een

well o/served that such utterances are no

essential part of an+ e2position of ideas, and

are of such sli)ht social value as a step to truth

that an+ /ene"t that ma+ /e derived fromthem is clearl+ outwei)hed /+ the social

interest in order and moralit+. 1

)i-el is not protected speech. Article ?-? of the

9evised Penal Code de"nes li/el as a pu/lic

and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a

vice or defect, real or ima)inar+, or an+ act,

omission, condition, status, or circumstance

tendin) to cause the dishonor, discredit, or

contempt of a natural or uridical person, or to

/lac%en the memor+ of one who is dead.

For an imputation to /e li/elous, the followin)

requisites must /e metB >a@ the alle)ation of a

discredita/le act or condition concernin)

another0 >/@ pu/lication of the char)e0 >c@

identit+ of the person defamed0 and >d@

e2istence of malice.3 In asque/ v. Court of

$ppeals,31 we had occasion to further e2plain.

&husB

An alle)ation is considered defamatory if i t

ascri/es to a person the commission of a

crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real

or ima)inar+, or an+ act, omission, condition,

status or circumstance which tends to dishonor

or discredit or put him in contempt, or which

tends to /lac%en the memor+ of one who is

dead.

&here is pu-lication if the material is

communicated to a third person. It is not

required that the person defamed has read or

heard a/out the li/elous remar%. hat is

material is that a third person has read or

heard the li/elous statement, for a manYs

reputation is the estimate in which others hold

him, not the )ood opinion which he has of

himself.

'n the other hand, to satisf+ the element

of identi8a-ility , it must /e shown that at least

a third person or a stran)er was a/le to identif+

him as the o/ect of the defamator+ statement.

Finall+, malice or ill will must /e present. Art.

?-4 of the 9evised Penal Code providesB

:ver+ defamator+ imputation is presumed to

/e malicious, even if it /e true, if no )ood

intention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is



person to another in the performance of an+le)al, moral or securit+ dut+0 and



udicial, le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s

which are not of con"dential nature, or of an+

statement, report or speech delivered in said



>citations omitted emphasis supplied@

In this case, there is no controvers+ as to the

e2istence of the three elements. &he

respondentYs name and address were clearl+

indicated in the article ascri/in) to him the

questiona/le practice of shootin) the wa+ward

pets of his nei)h/ors. &he /ac%lash caused /+

the pu/lication of the article was in fact such

that stones had /een thrown at their house,

/rea%in) several ower pots, and dail+ and

ni)htl+ calls compelled him to request a

chan)e of their telephone num/er.33 &hese

facts are not contested /+ the petitioners.

hat the petitioners claim is the a/sence of

proof of the fourth element 5 malice.

$s a general rule malice is presumed. Article

?-4 of the 9evised Penal Code statesB

A9&. ?-4. Requirement of *u-licity. Every

defamatory imputation is presumed to -e

malicious, even if it /e true, if no )oodintention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is




le)al, moral or social dut+0 and



udicial, le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s

which are not of con"dential nature, or of an+statement, report or speech delivered in said



#he article is not a privileged communication.

e "rst discussed the freedom of speech and

press and assem/l+visavis the laws on li/el

and slander in the )round/rea%in) case of US

v. Bustos,3? where we applied the prevailin)

:n)lish and American urisprudence to the

e*ect thatB















&he interest of societ+ and the maintenance of

)ood )overnment demand a full discussion of

pu/lic a*airs. Complete li/ert+ to comment on

the conduct of pu/lic men is a scalpel in the

case of free speech. &he sharp incision of its

pro/e relieves the a/scesses of o;cialdom.

(en in pu/lic life ma+ su*er under a hostile

and an unust accusation0 the wound can /e

assua)ed with the /alm of a clear conscience.

A pu/lic o;cer must not /e too thin5s%inned

with reference to comment upon his o;cial

acts. 'nl+ thus can the intelli)ence and di)nit+

of the individual /e e2alted. 'f course,

criticism does not authori=e defamation.

Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the

8tate, so must e2pected criticism /e /orn for

the common )ood 9isin) superior to an+

o;cial, or set of o;cials, to the Chief

:2ecutive, to the #e)islature, to the $udiciar+ 5

to an+ or all the a)encies of Hovernment 5

pu/lic opinion should /e the constant source of li/ert+ and democrac+. >citations omitted@

&he demand to protect pu/lic opinion for the

welfare of societ+ and the orderl+

administration of )overnment inevita/l+ lead to

the adoption of the do8t0#n% o+ !0#&#"%g%d8o??un#8at#on. A privile)ed communication

ma+ /e either a/solutel+ privile)ed or

quali"edl+ privile)ed. A/solutel+ privile)ed

communications are those which are not

actiona/le even if the author has acted in /ad

faith. An e2ample is found in 8ec. 11, Art. GI of

the 1E< Constitution which e2empts a

mem/er of Con)ress from lia/ilit+ for an+

speech or de/ate in the Con)ress or in an+

Committee thereof. Dpon the other hand,

quali"edl+ privile)ed communications

containin) defamator+ imputations are not

actiona/le unless found to have /een made

without )ood intention or usti"a/le motive. &o

this )enre /elon) [private communicationsY

and [fair and true report without an+ comments

or remar%s.Y34

&he appellate court correctl+ ruled that the

petitionersY stor+ is not privile)ed in character,

for it is neither private communication nor a

fair and true report without an+ comments or

remar%s.

US v. Bustos de"ned the concept of private

communication thusB A communication made

/ona "de upon an+ su/ect5matter in which the

part+ communicatin) has an interest, or in

reference to which he has a dut+, is privile)ed,

if made to a person havin) a correspondin)

interest or dut+, althou)h it contained

criminator+ matter which without this privile)e

would /e slanderous and actiona/le. A

pertinent illustration of the application of

quali"ed privile)e is a complaint made in )ood

faith and without malice in re)ard to the

character or conduct of a pu-lic o7cial when

addressed to an o;cer or a /oard havin) some

interest or dut+ in the matter.3-

&his defense is unavailin) to petitioners.

In 'ae/ v. Court of $ppeals36 we held thatB

As a rule, it is the ri)ht and dut+ of a citi=en to

ma%e a complaint of an+ misconduct on the

part of pu/lic o;cials, which comes to his

notice, to those char)ed with supervision over

them. 8uch a communication is quali"edl+

privile)ed and the author is not )uilt+ of li/el.

&he rule on privile)e, however, imposes anadditional requirement. 8uch complaints should

/e addressed solely to some o7cial having

1urisdiction to inquire into the charges or

power to redress the grievance or has some

duty to perform or interest in connection

therewith. >emphasis supplied@

In the instant case, even if we assume that the

letter written /+ the spurious Att+. An)ara is

privile)ed communication, it lost its character

as such when the matter was pu/lished in the

newspaper and circulated amon) the )eneral

population. A written letter containin) li/elous

matter cannot /e classi"ed as privile)ed when

it is pu/lished and circulated in pu/lic,3< which

was what the petitioners did in this case.

Neither is the news item a fair and true report

without an+ comments or remar%s of an+

udicial, le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s0

there is in fact no proceedin) to spea% of. Nor

is the article related to an+ act performed /+

pu/lic o;cers in the e2ercise of their functions,

for it concerns onl+ false imputations a)ainst

&hoenen, a private individual see%in) a quiet

life.

&he petitioners also claim to have made the

report out of a social and moral dut+ to inform

the pu/lic on matters of )eneral interest.

In Bor1al v. Court of $ppeals, we stated that

the enumeration under Art. ?-4 is not an

e2clusive list of quali"edl+ privile)ed

communications since +a#0 8o??%nta0#%s on?att%0s o+ !u@"#8 #nt%0%st are li%ewise

privile)ed. e stated that the doctrine of fair

commentaries means that while in )eneral

ever+ discredita/le imputation pu/licl+ made is

deemed false, /ecause ever+ man is presumed

innocent until his )uilt is udiciall+ proved, and

ever+ false imputation is deemed malicious,

nevertheless, when the discredita/le

imputation is directed a)ainst a pu/lic personin his pu/lic capacit+, it is not necessaril+

actiona/le. In order that such discredita/le

imputation to a pu/lic o;cial ma+ /e

actiona/le, it must either /e a false alle)ation

of fact or a comment /ased on a false

supposition.3E

A)ain, this ar)ument is unavailin) to the

petitioners. As we said, the respondent is a

private individual, and not a pu/lic o;cial or

pu/lic ")ure. e are persuaded /+ the

reasonin) of the Dnited 8tates 8upreme Court













in %ert/ v. Ro-ert elch "nc.,3 that a

newspaper or /roadcaster pu/lishin)

defamator+ falsehoods a/out an #nd#&#dua"o #s n%#t%0 a !u@"#8 oH8#a" no0 a !u@"#8gu0% ma+ not claim a constitutional privile)e

a)ainst lia/ilit+, for inur+ inicted, %&%n #+ t%+a"s%ood a0os% #n a d#s8uss#on o+ !u@"#8#nt%0%st.?

avin) esta/lished that the article cannot /e

considered as privile)ed communication,

malice is therefore presumed, and the fourth

requisite for the imputation of li/el to attach to

the petitioners in this case is met. &he news

article is therefore defamator+ and is not within

the realm of protected speech. &here is no

lon)er a need to discuss the other assi)nment

of errors, save for the amount of dama)es to

which respondent is entitled.

In *olicarpio v. Manila #imes *u-lishing Co."nc.,?1 we awarded dama)es where the

defendants deli/eratel+ presented a private

individual in a worse li)ht that what she

actuall+ was, and where other factual errors

were not prevented althou)h defendants had

the means to ascertain the veracit+ of their

report. 8uch are the facts o/tainin) here.

e must point out that #eeYs /rief news item

contained falsehoods on two levels. 'n its face,

her statement that residents of F omes hadas%ed the ureau of Immi)ration to deport a

8wiss who alle)edl+ shoots nei)h/orsY pets is

patentl+ untrue since the letter of the spurious

Att+. An)ara was a mere request for veri"cation

of &hoenenYs status as a forei)n resident. #eeYs

article, moreover, is also untrue, in that the

events she reported never happened. &he

respondent had never shot an+ of his

nei)h/orsY pets, no complaints had /een

lod)ed a)ainst him /+ his nei)h/ors, and no

deportation proceedin)s had /een initiated

a)ainst him. orse, the author of #eeYs main

source of information, Att+. :fren An)ara,

apparentl+ either does not e2ist, or is not a

law+er. Petitioner #ee would have /een

enli)htened on su/stantiall+ all these matters

had she /ut tried to contact either An)ara or

&hoenen.

Althou)h it has /een stressed that a

newspaper should not /e held to account to a

point of suppression forhonest mista%es, or

imperfection in the choice of words,?3 even the

most li/eral view of free speech has never

countenanced the pu/lication of falsehoods,

especiall+ the persistent and unmiti)ated

dissemination of patent lies.?? &here is no

constitutional value in false statements of fact.

Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error

materiall+ advances societ+Ys interest in

[uninhi/ited, ro/ust, and wide5openY

de/ate.?4 &he use of the %nown lie as a tool is

at once at odds with the premises of democratic )overnment and with the orderl+

manner in which economic, social, or political

chan)e is to /e e*ected. Calculated falsehood

falls into that class of utterances which are no

essential part of an+ e2position of ideas, and

are of such sli)ht social value as a step to truth

that an+ /ene"t that ma+ /e derived from

them is clearl+ outwei)hed /+ the social

interest in order and moralit+Z &he %nowin)l+

false statement and the false statement made

with rec%less disre)ard of the truth, do not

eno+ constitutional protection >citations

omitted@.?-

&he le)itimate state interest underl+in) the law

of li/el is the compensation of the individuals

for the harm inicted upon them /+

defamator+ falsehood. After all, the individualYs

ri)ht to protection of his own )ood name

reects no more than our /asic concept of the

essential di)nit+ and worth of ever+ human

/ein) V a concept at the root of an+ decent

s+stem of ordered li/ert+.?6

&he appellate court awarded &hoenen moral

dama)es of P3,., e2emplar+ dama)es

of P-,. and le)al fees of P?,., to

/e /orne ointl+ and severall+ /+ the herein

petitioners. In %uevarra v. $lmario,?< we noted

that the dama)es in a li/el case must depend

upon the facts of the particular case and the

sound discretion of the court, althou)h

appellate courts were more li%el+ to reduce

dama)es for li/el than to increase them. ?E 8o

it is in this case.

:9:F'9:, the !ecision of the Court of

Appeals of 1< $anuar+ 3 reversin) the

!ecision of the 9e)ional &rial Court, ranch 63,

(a%ati Cit+, of ?1 Au)ust 14 is here/+

AFFI9(:!, su/ect to the modi"cation that

petitioners are ordered to pa+, ointl+ and

severall+, moral dama)es in the sum

of P1,., e2emplar+ dama)es

of P?,., and le)al fees of P3,.. Nocosts.

8' '9!:9:!.





























G.R. No. 17525 August 2, 2/12LIL6 LIM, *%t#t#on%0, &s.K) ') *ING a.B.a. 'ARLIE'), R%s!ond%nt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - G.R. No. 1791/K) ') *ING a.B.a. 'ARLIE'), *%t#t#on%0, &s.

LIL6 LIM, R%s!ond%nt.LE)NARD)-DE 'A(TR),

*ERLA(-ERNAE,

DEL 'A(TILL), J.:

Is it forum shoppin) for a private complainant

to pursue a civil complaint for speci"c

performance and dama)es, while appealin) the

ud)ment on the civil aspect of a criminal case

for estafa

efore the Court are consolidated Petitions for

9eview assailin) the separate !ecisions of the

8econd and 8eventeenth !ivisions of the Court

of Appeals >CA@ on the a/ove issue.

#il+ #imYs >#im@ Petition for 9eview1 assails the

'cto/er 3, 3- 9esolution3 of the 8econd

!ivision in CA5H.9. CG No. E-1?E, which ruled

on the a/ove issue in the a;rmativeB

!ue to the "lin) of the said civil complaint

>Civil Case No. -113?6@, Charlie Co "led the

instant motion to dismiss #il+ #imYsJ appeal,alle)in) that in "lin) said civil case, #il+ #im

violated the rule a)ainst forum shoppin) as the

elements of litis pendentia are present.

&his Court a)rees.?

IN GI: 'F &: F'9:H'INH, the appeal is

!I8(I88:!.

8' '9!:9:!.4

'n the other hand, Charlie CoYs >Co@ Petition

for 9eview- assails the April 1, 3<

!ecision6 of the 8eventeenth !ivision in CA5

H.9. 8P No. ??- for rulin) on the same issue

in the ne)ativeB

e "nd no )rave a/use of discretion

committed /+ respondent ud)e. &he elements

of litis pendentiaand forum5shoppin) were not

met in this case.<

EREF)RE, in view of the fore)oin), the

instant petition is DENIED. &his case

is REMANDED to the court of ori)in for further

proceedin)s.

8' '9!:9:!.E

!actual $ntecedents

In Fe/ruar+ 1, F9 Cement Corporation

>F9CC@, owner7operator of a cement

manufacturin) plant, issued several withdrawal

authorities for the account of cement dealers

and traders, Fil5Cement Center and &i)er/ilt.

&hese withdrawal authorities state the num/er

of /a)s that the dealer7trader paid for and can

withdraw from the plant. :ach withdrawal

authorit+ contained a provision that it is valid

for si2 months from its date of issuance, unless

revo%ed /+ F9CC (ar%etin) !epartment.

Fil5Cement Center and &i)er/ilt, throu)h their

administrative mana)er, Hail ora >ora@, sold

the withdrawal authorities coverin) -,

/a)s of cement to Co for the amount of P ?.1-

million or P 6?. per /a).1 'n Fe/ruar+ 1-,

1, Co sold these withdrawal authorities to

#im alle)edl+ at the price of P 64. per /a) or

a total of P ?.3 million.11

Dsin) the withdrawal authorities, #im withdrew

the cement /a)s from F9CC on a sta))ered

/asis. 8he successfull+ withdrew 3,E /a)s of

cement, and sold /ac% some of the withdrawal

authorities, coverin) 1, /a)s, to Co.

8ometime in April 1, F9CC did not allow #im

to withdraw the remainin) ?<,3 /a)s

covered /+ the withdrawal authorities. #im

clari"ed the matter with Co and ora, who

e2plained that the plant implemented a price

increase and would onl+ release the )oods

once #im pa+s for the price di*erence or

a)rees to receive a lesser quantit+ of cement.

#im o/ected and maintained that the

withdrawal authorities she /ou)ht were not

su/ect to price uctuations. #im sou)ht le)al

recourse after her demands for Co to resolve

the pro/lem with the plant or for the return of

her mone+ had failed.

#he criminal case

An Information for :stafa throu)h

(isappropriation or Conversion was "led

a)ainst Co /efore ranch 1-4 of the 9e)ional

&rial Court >9&C@ of Pasi) Cit+. &he accusator+

portion thereof readsB

'n or a/out /etween the months of Fe/ruar+

and April 1, in 8an $uan, (etro (anila and

within the urisdiction of this onora/le Court,

the accused, with intent to defraud #il+ #im,

with )rave a/use of con"dence, withunfaithfulness, received in trust from #il+ #im

cash mone+ in the amount of P3,?E,E. as

pa+ment for the ?<,3 /a)s of cement, under

o/li)ation to deliver the ?<,3 /a)s of cement

to said #il+ #im, /ut far from compl+in) with his

o/li)ation, misappropriated, misapplied and

converted to his own personal use and /ene"t

the said amount of P 3,?,E. sicJ and

despite demands, the accused failed and

refused to return said amount, to the dama)e

and preudice of #il+ #im in the amount

of P 3,?E,E..

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_175256_2012.html#fnt1




























Contrar+ to #aw.13

&he private complainant, #il+ #im, participated

in the criminal proceedin)s to prove her

dama)es. 8he pra+ed for Co to return her

mone+ amountin) to P 3,?E,E., fore)one

pro"ts, and le)al interest, and for an award of

moral and e2emplar+ dama)es, as well as

attorne+Ys fees.1?

'n Novem/er 1, 3?, the 9&C of Pasi) Cit+,

ranch 1-4, rendered its 'rder14 acquittin) Co

of the estafa char)e for insu;cienc+ of

evidence. &he criminal courtYs 'rder readsB

&he "rst and second elements of the crime of

estafa with a/use of con"dence under Article

?1-, para)raph 1>/@J for which the accused is

/ein) char)ed and prosecuted were not

esta/lished /+ the prosecutionYs evidence.

2 2 2 2

In view of the a/sence of the essential

requisites of the crime of estafa for which the

accused is /ein) char)ed and prosecuted, as

a/ove discussed, the Court has no alternative

/ut to dismiss the case a)ainst the accused for

insu;cienc+ of evidence.1-

EREF)RE, in view of the fore)oin),

the D%?u00%0 to E&#d%n8% is GRANTED, andthe accused is here/+ A'<ITTED of the

crime of estafa char)ed a)ainst him under the

present information for insu;cienc+ of

evidence.

Insofar as the civil lia/ilit+ of the accused is

concerned, however, set this case for the

reception of his evidence on the matter on

!ecem/er 11, 3? at EB? oYcloc% sicJ in the

mornin).

8' '9!:9:!.16

After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal

case, the Pasi) Cit+ 9&C also relieved Co of civil

lia/ilit+ to #im in its !ecem/er 1, 34

'rder.1< &he dispositive portion of the 'rder

reads as followsB

EREF)RE, premises considered, ud)mentis here/+ rendered holdin) the

accused 'ARLIE ') not civill+ lia/le to the

private complainant #il+ #im.

8' '9!:9:!.1E

#im sou)ht a reconsideration of the a/ove

'rder, ar)uin) that she has presented

preponderant evidence that Co committed

estafa a)ainst her.1

&he trial court denied the motion in its

'rder3 dated Fe/ruar+ 31, 3-.

'n (arch 14, 3-, #im "led her notice of

appeal31 on the civil aspect of the criminal

case. er appeal was doc%eted as CA5H.9. CG

No. E-1?E and raUed to the 8econd !ivision of

the CA.

#he civil action for speci8c performance

'n April 1, 3-, #im "led a complaint for

speci"c performance and dama)es /efore

ranch 31 of the 9&C of (anila. &he defendants

in the civil case were Co and all other parties to

the withdrawal authorities, &i)er/ilt, Fil5Cement

Center, F9CC, 8outheast Asia Cement, and #a

Far)e Corporation. &he complaint, doc%eted as

Civil Case No. -5113?6, asserted two causes

of actionB /reach of contract and a/use of

ri)hts. er alle)ations readB

A##:HA&I'N8 C'(('N

&' A## CAD8:8 'F AC&I'N

2 2 2 2

3?. Charlie Co o/li)ated himself to deliver to

#il+ #im -, /a)s of cement of P 64. per

/a) on an 25plant /asis within ? months from

the date of their transaction, i.e. Fe/ruar+ 1-,1. Pursuant to said a)reement, #il+ #im

paid Charlie Co P ?.3 (illion while Charlie Co

delivered to #il+ #im F9 Cement ithdrawal

Authorities representin) -, /a)s of

cement.

34. &he withdrawal authorities issued /+ F9

Cement Corp. allowed the assi)nee or holder

thereof to withdraw within a si25month period

from date a certain amount of cement

indicated therein. &he ithdrawal Authorities

)iven to #il+ #im were dated either ? Fe/ruar+1 or 3? Fe/ruar+ 1. &he ithdrawal

Authorities were "rst issued to &i)er/ilt and Fil5

Cement Center which in turn assi)ned them to

Charlie Co. Charlie Co then assi)ned the

ithdrawal Authorities to #il+ #im on Fe/ruar+

1-, 1. &hrou)h these series of assi)nments,

#il+ #im acquired all the ri)hts >ri)hts to

withdraw cement@ )ranted in said ithdrawal

Authorities.

3-. &hat these ithdrawal Authorities are validis esta/lished /+ the fact that F9 Cement

earlier allowed #il+ #im to withdraw 3,E /a)s

of cement on the /asis thereof.

36. owever, sometime 1 April 1 >within

the three >?@5month period a)reed upon /+

Charlie Co and #il+ #im and certainl+ within the

si2 >6@5month period indicated in the

ithdrawal Authorities issued /+ F9 Cement

Corp.@, #il+ #im attempted /ut failed to

withdraw the remainin) /a)s of cement on



























Co "led a petition for certiorari,?3 doc%eted as

CA5H.9. 8P No. ??-, /efore the appellate

court. e pra+ed for the nulli"cation of the

(anila 9&CYs 'rder in Civil Case No. -5113?6

for havin) /een issued with )rave a/use of

discretion.??

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

e"enteenth !i"ision in CA-#.R. P $o.

,((,&

&he CA 8eventeenth !ivision denied CoYs

petition and remanded the civil complaint to

the trial court for further proceedin)s. &he CA

8eventeenth !ivision a)reed with the (anila

9&C that the elements of litis pendentia and

forum shoppin) are not met in the two

proceedin)s /ecause the+ do not share the

same cause of action.?4

&he CA denied?- CoYs motion forreconsideration.?6

Co "led the instant Petition for 9eview, which

was doc%eted as H.9. No. 1<16.

Dpon CoYs motion,?< the Court resolved to

consolidate the two petitions.?E

Gou Co *ingHs arguments

Co maintains that #im is )uilt+ of forum

shoppin) /ecause she is assertin) onl+ one

cause of action in CA5H.9. CG No. E-1?E >the

appeal from the civil aspect of Criminal Case

No. 116?<<@ and in Civil Case No. -5113?6,

which is for CoYs violation of her ri)ht to

receive ?<,3 /a)s of cement. #i%ewise, the

reliefs sou)ht in /oth cases are the same, that

is, for Co to deliver the ?<,3 /a)s of cement

or its value to #im. &hat #im utili=ed di*erent

methods of presentin) her case V a criminal

action for estafa and a civil complaint for

speci"c performance and dama)es V should

not detract from the fact that she is attemptin)

to liti)ate the same cause of action twice.?

Co ma%es li)ht of the distinction /etween civil

lia/ilit+ e2 contractu and e2 delicto. Accordin)

to him, )rantin) that the two civil lia/ilities are

independent of each other, nevertheless, the

two cases arisin) from them would have to /e

decided usin) the same evidence and )oin)

over the same set of facts. &hus, an+ ud)ment

rendered in one of these cases will constitute

res udicata on the other.4

In H.9. No. 1<16, Co pra+s for the annulment

of the CA !ecision and 9esolution in CA5H.9. 8P

No. ??-, for a declaration that #im is )uilt+

of forum shoppin), and for the dismissal of Civil

Case No. -5113?6.41

In H.9. No. 1<-3-6, Co pra+s for the a;rmationof the CA !ecision in CA5H.9. CG No. E-1?E

>which dismissed #imYs appeal from the trial

courtYs decision in Criminal Case No. 116?<<@.43

)ily )imHs arguments

#im admits that the two proceedin)s involve

su/stantiall+ the same set of facts /ecause

the+ arose from onl+ one transaction.4? 8he is

quic% to add, however, that a sin)le act or

omission does not alwa+s ma%e a sin)le causeof action.44 It can possi/l+ )ive rise to two

separate civil lia/ilities on the part of the

o*ender V >1@ e2 delicto or civil lia/ilit+ arisin)

from crimes, and >3@ independent civil lia/ilities

or those arisin) from contracts or intentional

torts. &he onl+ caveat provided in Article 31<<

of the Civil Code is that the o*ended part+

cannot recover dama)es twice for the same act

or omission.4- ecause the law allows her two

independent causes of action, #im contends

that it is not forum shoppin) to pursue them.46

8he then e2plains the separate and distinct

causes of action involved in the two cases. er

cause of action in CA5H.9 CG No. E-1?E is

/ased on the crime of estafa. Co violated #imYs

ri)ht to /e protected a)ainst swindlin). e

represented to #im that she can withdraw

?<,3 /a)s of cement usin) the authorities

she /ou)ht from him. &his is a fraudulent

representation /ecause Co %new, at the time

that the+ entered into the contract, that hecould not deliver what he promised.4< 'n the

other hand, #imYs cause of action in Civil Case

No. -5113?6 is /ased on contract. Co

violated #imYs ri)hts as a /u+er in a contract of

sale. Co received pa+ment for the ?<,3 /a)s

of cement /ut did not deliver the )oods that

were the su/ect of the sale.4E

In H.9. No. 1<16, #im pra+s for the denial of

CoYs petition.4 In H.9. No. 1<-3-6, she pra+s

for the reversal of the CA !ecision in CA5H.9.CG No. E-1?E, for a declaration that she is not

)uilt+ of forum shoppin), and for the

reinstatement of her appeal in Criminal Case

No. 116?<< to the CA.-

Issu%

!id #im commit forum shoppin) in "lin) the

civil case for speci"c performance and

dama)es durin) the pendenc+ of her appeal on

the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa

)u0 Ru"#ng

A sin)le act or omission that causes dama)e to

an o*ended part+ ma+ )ive rise to two

separate civil lia/ilities on the part of the

o*ender-1 >1@ civil lia/ilit+ e2 delicto, that is,

civil lia/ilit+ arisin) from the criminal o*ense

under Article 1 of the 9evised Penal Code,−5-3 and >3@ independent civil lia/ilit+, that is, civil

lia/ilit+ that ma+ /e pursued independentl+ of

the criminal proceedin)s. &he independent civil

















































lia/ilit+ ma+ /e /ased on an o/li)ation not

arisin) from the act or omission complained of

as a felon+, as provided in Article ?1 of the

Civil Code >such as for /reach of contract or for

tort-?@. It ma+ also /e /ased on an act or

omission that ma+ constitute felon+ /ut,

nevertheless, treated independentl+ from the

criminal action /+ speci"c provision of Article

?? of the Civil Code >in cases of defamation,

fraud and ph+sical inuries@.

&he civil lia/ilit+ arisin) from the o*ense or e2

delicto is /ased on the acts or omissions that

constitute the criminal o*ense0 hence, its trial

is inherentl+ intertwined with the criminal

action. For this reason, the civil lia/ilit+ e2

delicto is impliedl+ instituted with the criminal

o*ense.-4 If the action for the civil lia/ilit+ e2

delicto is instituted prior to or su/sequent to

the "lin) of the criminal action, its proceedin)s

are suspended until the "nal outcome of thecriminal action.-- &he civil lia/ilit+ /ased on

delict is e2tin)uished when the court hearin)

the criminal action declares that the act or

omission from which the civil lia/ilit+ ma+ arise

did not e2ist.-6

'n the other hand, the independent civil

lia/ilities are separate from the criminal action

and ma+ /e pursued independentl+, as

provided in Articles ?1 and ?? of the Civil Code,

which state thatB

A9&. ?1. hen the civil action is /ased on an

o/li)ation not arisin) from the act or omission

complained of as a felon+, such civil action

ma+ proceed independentl+ of the criminal

proceedin)s and re)ardless of the result of the

latter. >:mphasis supplied.@

A9&. ??. In cases of defamation, fraud, and

ph+sical inuries a civil action for dama)es,

entirel+ separate and distinct from the criminal

action, ma+ /e /rou)ht /+ the inured part+.

8uch civil action shall proceed independentl+ of

the criminal prosecution, and shall require onl+

a preponderance of evidence. >:mphasis

supplied.@

ecause of the distinct and independent nature

of the two %inds of civil lia/ilities, urisprudence

holds that the o*ended part+ ma+ pursue the

two t+pes of civil lia/ilities simultaneousl+ or

cumulativel+, without o*endin) the rules on

forum shoppin), litis pendentia, or res

1udicata.-< As e2plained in Cancio 9r. v. "sip-E

'ne of the elements of res 1udicata is identit+

of causes of action. In the instant case, it must

/e stressed that the action "led /+ petitioner is

an independent civil action, which remains

separate and distinct from an+ criminal

prosecution /ased on the same act. Not /ein)

deemed instituted in the criminal action /ased

on culpa criminal, a rulin) on the culpa/ilit+ of the o*ender will have no /earin) on said

independent civil action /ased on an entirel+

di*erent cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual.

In the same vein, the "lin) of the collection

case after the dismissal of the estafa cases

a)ainst the o*ender did not amount to forum5

shoppin). &he essence of forum shoppin) is

the "lin) of multiple suits involvin) the same

parties for the same cause of action, either

simultaneousl+ or successivel+, to secure afavora/le ud)ment. Althou)h the cases "led

/+ the o*ended part+J arose from the same

act or omission of the o*enderJ, the+ are,

however, /ased on di*erent causes of action.

&he criminal cases for estafa are /ased on

culpa criminal while the civil action for

collection is anchored on culpa contractual.

(oreover, there can /e no forum5shoppin) in

the instant case /ecause the law e2pressl+

allows the "lin) of a separate civil action which

can proceed independentl+ of the criminal

action.-

8ince civil lia/ilities arisin) from felonies and

those arisin) from other sources of o/li)ations

are authori=ed /+ law to proceed

independentl+ of each other, the resolution of

the present issue hin)es on whether the two

cases herein involve di*erent %inds of civil

o/li)ations such that the+ can proceed

independentl+ of each other. &he answer is in

the a;rmative.

&he "rst action is clearl+ a civil action e2

delicto, it havin) /een instituted to)ether with

the criminal action.6

'n the other hand, the second action, ud)in)

/+ the alle)ations contained in the

complaint,61 is a civil action arisin) from a

contractual o/li)ation and for tortious conduct

>a/use of ri)hts@. In her civil complaint, #im

/asicall+ alle)es that she entered into a sale

contract with Co under the followin) termsBthat she /ou)ht ?<,3 /a)s of cement at the

rate of P 64. per /a) from Co0 that, after full

pa+ment, Co delivered to her the withdrawal

authorities issued /+ F9CC correspondin) to

these /a)s of cement0 that these withdrawal

authorities will /e honored /+ F9CC for si2

months from the dates written thereon. #im

then maintains that the defendants /reached

their contractual o/li)ations to her under the

sale contract and under the withdrawal

authorities0 that Co and his co5defendants

wanted her to pa+ more for each /a) of

cement, contrar+ to their a)reement to "2 the

price at P 64. per /a) and to the wordin) of

the withdrawal authorities0 that F9CC did not

honor the terms of the withdrawal authorities it

issued0 and that Co did not compl+ with his

o/li)ation under the sale contract to deliver

the ?<,3 /a)s of cement to #im. From the

fore)oin) alle)ations, it is evident that #im

see%s to enforce the defendantsY contractual

o/li)ations, )iven that she has alread+

performed her o/li)ations. 8he pra+s that the

























Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping

Documents

Transcript of Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping