Case Digest (G.R. No. 107566)
Facts:
Baguio Midland Courier, represented by its President and General Manager, Oseo Hamada and Cecille Afable, Editor‑in‑Chief, petitioners, vs. The Court of Appeals (Former SP, 6th Division) and Ramon Labo, Jr., respondents, G.R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the publisher (Baguio Printing and Publishing Co., Inc./Baguio Midland Courier), its business manager and president Oseo C. Hamada, and columnist/editor‑in‑chief Cecille Afable. Respondent Ramon L. Labo, Jr. was a candidate for mayor of Baguio City in the January 18, 1988 elections (he later won). Afable published a column “In and Out of Baguio” containing comments about several candidates; two passages (published January 3 and January 10, 1988) were the subject of libel claims. A separate criminal libel complaint was dismissed by the Department of Justice on December 26, 1988 for insufficiency of evidence; the civil action for damages was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Baguio City.
The RTC denied petitioners’ motions to dismiss (which argued, among other grounds, noncompliance with P.D. No. 1508’s barangay conciliation requirement and failure to state a cause of action), allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that impleaded the corporation, and proceeded to trial after the parties limited issues at pretrial to (1) whether the publications were libelous, false and malicious, (2) entitlement to damages, and (3) petitioners’ counterclaims. At trial plaintiffs abandoned proof of the January 3 article, so the RTC considered only the January 10, 1988 column. Witnesses for plaintiffs testified to their understanding that the phrase “dumpty in the egg” referred to private respondent; petitioners produced evidence of unpaid campaign accounts (P27,415) and testimony that the writings were fair comment on a public candidate.
On June 14, 1990 the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding the column privileged as fair comment on a matter of public interest. The Court of Appeals reversed on January 7, 1992, finding libel proven, awarding moral damages (P200,000), exemplary damages (P100,000), attorneys’ fees (P50,000) and costs, and concluding malice could be inferred from timing, style and the specific naming of complainant in the contested paragraph. Th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in its findings of fact so as to justify their correction by the Supreme Court?
- Could a third person reasonably identify Ramon L. Labo, Jr. as the subject of the January 10, 1988 column?
- Was the January 10, 1988 column libelous — i.e., did private respondent prove actual malice or the requisite elements of defamation?
- Did the fair‑comment/public‑interest privilege apply to petitioners’ publ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)