Title
Jalandoni vs. Drilon
Case
G.R. No. 115239-40
Decision Date
Mar 2, 2000
A public official’s libel complaints dismissed; statements in ads and letters deemed protected speech, lacking malice, upheld by Supreme Court.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 115239-40)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

# Background of the Case

  • Administrative Complaint and Publication: On July 15, 1992, Jaime Ledesma, a private respondent, filed an administrative complaint against petitioner Mario C.V. Jalandoni, a PCGG Commissioner, for alleged violations of the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On July 16 and 17, 1992, news articles about the complaint were published in various newspapers.
  • Paid Advertisement: On July 16, 1992, private respondents (Robert Coyiuto, Jr., Jaime Ledesma, Ramon Garcia, Amparo Barcelon, Antonio Ozaeta, and Carlos Dyhongpo) caused the publication of a full-page paid advertisement in five major newspapers. The advertisement accused Jalandoni of illegal and unauthorized acts, including graft and corruption, in connection with a financial arrangement involving Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corporation (OPMC).

# Libel Complaints Filed by Jalandoni

  • I.S. No. 93-6228: On July 16, 1993, Jalandoni filed a libel complaint against the private respondents based on the July 16, 1992 advertisement. The Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal recommended the indictment of the respondents, and an information for libel was filed in court.
  • I.S. No. 93-6422: On July 22, 1993, Jalandoni filed another libel complaint against Robert Coyiuto, Jr., based on an open letter dated August 14, 1992, addressed to OPMC stockholders. The letter insinuated that Jalandoni was involved in a questionable deal with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). The Provincial Prosecutor also recommended indictment, and an information for libel was filed.

# DOJ Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration

  • DOJ Resolution No. 211, Series of 1994: On March 15, 1994, Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon issued a resolution setting aside the Provincial Prosecutor’s recommendations and dismissing the libel complaints. The Secretary directed the withdrawal of the informations filed in court.
  • Motion for Reconsideration: Jalandoni filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by Secretary Drilon in a letter-order dated April 20, 1994.

Issues:

  • Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the libel complaints and ordering the withdrawal of the informations filed against the private respondents.
  • Whether the statements in the advertisement and open letter constituted libel against Jalandoni, a public official.
  • Whether the statements were protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the Secretary of Justice’s decision to dismiss the libel complaints, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The statements in question were protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, and Jalandoni failed to prove actual malice. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.