A.C. No. 7472 - Maniago vs. De Dios

Petitioner Alfredo P. Malit, acting as counsel for Miss Ruth Fernandez, was involved in an administrative case filed against his client by Dr. Macaspac.
The administrative proceeding was underway when a pivotal incident occurred during the hearing held on January 17, 1980.

During the hearing, Dr. Macaspac identified several exhibits on the witness stand.
On cross-examination by petitioner Atty. Malit, a question was raised regarding who “made” a particular exhibit.
Dr. Macaspac, when asked if she knew the person who “made” the exhibit, evaded the question by stating that she did not understand the word “made.”
Petitioner attempted to clarify that “made” meant “prepared,” but the witness persisted in avoiding the explanation.
Frustrated by the evasive responses, petitioner remarked: “I doubt how did you become a Doctor.”

As a consequence of the remark, Dr. Macaspac filed a complaint for slander against petitioner with the Fiscal’s Office of Caloocan City.
An information for unjust vexation was subsequently filed on February 28, 1980, docketed as Criminal Case No. 126521 by Special Counsel Apolinario A. Exevea.
The information charged that on January 17, 1980, petitioner willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously uttered the remark in question, causing great annoyance, vexation, and disgust to Dr. Macaspac.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the alleged facts did not constitute an offense, arguing that utterances made in judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege.
The trial court, presided over by Judge Carlos C. Ofilada of the City Court of Caloocan City, Branch IV, denied petitioner’s motion to quash on February 20, 1981.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on May 5, 1981, with the rationale that the court lacked jurisdiction given that the facts were considered privileged communication.

Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition from the First Division of the Supreme Court to review the interlocutory orders denying his motions.
The petition challenged both the sufficiency of the facts to sustain a criminal offense and the admissibility of the utterance under the doctrine of absolute privilege in judicial proceedings.

Whether the utterance “I doubt how did you become a Doctor” made by petitioner during cross-examination is protected by absolute privilege as it was uttered in the course of judicial proceedings.
Whether the trial court correctly denied the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration on the basis that the statement in question, being a communication in judicial proceedings, is immune from slander charges.
Whether an interlocutory order denying a motion to quash, based on the privilege applicable to judicial proceedings, is subject to review by certiorari.
Whether the alleged defamatory statement, considering the context and relevance to the judicial proceedings, falls outside the ambit of punishable offenses due to its privileged character.