Case Digest (G.R. No. 15905)
Facts:
In Nicanor T. Jimenez, et al. v. Bartolome Cabangbang (124 Phil. 296, G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966), plaintiffs‐appellants Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban sued defendant‐appellee Bartolome Cabangbang in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for damages, alleging publication of an allegedly libelous open letter. Cabangbang, then a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National Defense, addressed his letter to the President of the Philippines on November 14, 1958, during a presumed congressional recess, and caused its publication in several newspapers. The letter detailed three purported operational plans by high‐ranking military officers and civilian strategists to build up Jesus Vargas as a presidential candidate, to mount a coup d’état and to stage a loyalty parade, naming Jimenez, Albert and Lukban as tools of these “planners,” but conceding they “may be absolutely unaware” of the schemes. The trial court granted CabCase Digest (G.R. No. 15905)
Facts:
- Case Background
- Plaintiffs Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban filed a civil action in the CFI of Rizal for damages allegedly caused by a libelous letter published by defendant Bartolome Cabangbang.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that the letter was not libelous and, if libelous, was a privileged communication under Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint.
- The Alleged Libelous Letter
- Nature and Timing
- An open letter dated November 14, 1958, addressed to the President, published in newspapers while Congress was not in session.
- Defendant was then a Congressman and Chairman of the House Committee on National Defense.
- Content and Allegations
- Described three “operational plans” allegedly under study by AFP officers with civilian strategists to build up Secretary Vargas politically, stage a coup d’état, and later modify the plan by a public loyalty parade.
- Named plaintiffs as “tools” of the unnamed “planners,” yet conceded they might be “unwitting tools” with “absolutely no knowledge” of the plans.
- Recommended among other things the resignation of Secretary Vargas and General Arellano, removal of military influence in politics, and reassignment of intelligence chiefs.
Issues:
- Whether the publication is a privileged communication under the Speech or Debate Clause of Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution.
- Whether the publication is libelous as to the plaintiffs despite the disclaimer of their knowledge or intent.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)