Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29560)
Facts:
Miguel Cuenco v. Manuel Cuenco, Jose P. V. Velez, Jesus P. Velez, Federico A. Reyes, Dioscoro B. Lazaro and Nicolas Jumapao, G.R. No. L-29560, March 31, 1976, Supreme Court First Division, Esguerra, J., writing for the Court.On August 3, 1958 an item appearing in Issue No. 182, Volume X of the provincial newspaper The Republic Daily reproduced a complaint filed by the Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. (Civil Case No. 5665, C.F.I. Cebu) accusing then-Congressman Miguel Cuenco of unauthorized overdraws of salary and of collecting attorney’s fees while an incumbent member of Congress. On November 15, 1958 Miguel Cuenco filed a libel suit (Civil Case No. 5842, C.F.I. Cebu) against the alleged authors and publishers: fellow director-officers Manuel Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, Jesus P. Velez, Federico A. Reyes, publisher/business manager Dioscoro B. Lazaro, and later added attorney Nicolas Jumapao.
Defendants answered, denied conspiracy, asserted the article was a fair and true report of a judicial pleading and therefore privileged, and filed counterclaims for damages and attorney’s fees. Extensive testimony was taken, including the plaintiff’s chief witness Ildefonso Guisadio who described an alleged conspiracy and a dictated article, and defendants’ witnesses who described routine newspaperman copying of the complaint from the clerk’s office and ordinary linotype/printing procedures. Defendants moved ex parte to dismiss for failure to prosecute (Sec. 3, Rule 17, Rules of Court); the trial court required plaintiff to show cause and denied the motion on March 12, 1964.
After trial the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on August 12, 1967: it dismissed the complaint against Dr. Manuel Cuenco, Jesus Velez, Jose Velez and Atty. Nicolas Jumapao, but held that the article was libelous per se and found Dioscoro B. Lazaro liable for publication, awarding plaintiff P2,000 in damages. Plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court (claiming P1,000,000 in damages); defendants Lazaro and Jumapao separately appealed to the Court of Appeals b...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiff prove by convincing evidence that the other defendants conspired with Dioscoro B. Lazaro in composing and publishing the challenged newspaper article?
- Is the newspaper article (reproducing the complaint in Civil Case No. 5665) libelous per se?
- If libelous per se, was its publication privileged so as to bar liability?
- Is plaintiff entitled to damages; and are defendants entit...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)