Case Digest (A.C. No. 10031)
Facts:
Arturo Borjal a.k.a. Art Borjal and Maximo Soliven, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Francisco Wenceslao, respondents, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Borjal and Soliven were, respectively, a columnist and the publisher/chairman of the editorial board of The Philippine Star; Borjal wrote the column "Jaywalker." Private respondent Francisco Wenceslao was Executive Director and spokesman of the First National Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT), a 1989 project organized to draft an omnibus land-transportation bill and funded by solicitations from government agencies, private organizations and individuals.
Between May and July 1989 Borjal published several "Jaywalker" columns that criticized an unnamed "organizer of a conference" and accused that organizer of shady fundraising, influence-peddling and other discreditable acts. Wenceslao wrote letters to the paper asserting he was the person referred to, filed an ethics complaint with the National Press Club, and later pursued legal remedies. A criminal libel complaint was filed but dismissed by the city prosecutor on August 7, 1990; the dismissal was sustained by the Department of Justice and by the Office of the President.
On October 31, 1990 Wenceslao filed a civil action for damages (Civil Case No. Q-90-7058, RTC, Branch 98, Quezon City). The trial court ruled for Wenceslao and awarded P1,000,000 actual/compensatory, P200,000 moral, P100,000 exemplary, P200,000 attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 40496) affirmed liability but reduced the awards to P110,000 actual, P200,000 moral and P75,000 attorneys’ fees plus costs in its Decision of March 25, 1996. The CA found Wenceslao sufficiently identifiable, held Borjal’s writings defamatory, rejected privilege and fair-comment defenses, and declined to apply the New York Times actual-malice standard.
Wenceslao sought further relief in separate filings (G.R. No. 124396) that were denied as premature or improper. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on September 12, 1996. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for review wi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was private respondent Francisco Wenceslao sufficiently identified by Borjal’s articles to sustain a libel action?
- Were Borjal’s writings privileged as fair comment on a matter of public interest and thus immune from liability?
- Did the New York Times v. Sullivan public-official/public-figure doctrine apply, and did Wenceslao prove actual malice?
- If Borjal is liable, is Maximo Soli...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)