Title
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board vs. ABC Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 212670
Decision Date
Jul 6, 2022
A TV5 show's hosts made threatening remarks about a public incident; MTRCB imposed penalties, but courts ruled the statements were protected speech, upholding free expression and self-regulation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 212670)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Background
    • Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)
      • Issued a Decision dated May 30, 2012 in ADM. Case No. 008-2012.
      • Penalized “T3 Kapatid Sagot Kita” (T3) for airing objectionable scenes on May 7, 2012:
        • Three-month suspension.
ii. Fine of ₱100,000.00. iii. Probation/per-episode permit after suspension.
  • ABC Development Corp. (TV5)
    • Aired T3, hosted by Raffy, Erwin, and Ben Tulfo.
    • Tulfo brothers made threatening, profane utterances regarding the mauling of their brother Ramon Tulfo.
  • Procedural History
    • Administrative Proceedings
      • MTRCB Special Agents filed an incident report on May 7, 2012.
      • Chief Legal Counsel found probable cause under Section 3(c), PD 1986; formal adjudication followed.
      • Hearing and Adjudication Committee issued 20-day preventive suspension (May 10, 2012) and the May 30, 2012 Decision.
    • Self-Regulation by TV5
      • TV5 directed hosts to explain; they apologized.
      • TV5 imposed a three-episode suspension instead of contract termination.
    • Judicial Proceedings
      • TV5 filed Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA; TRO granted; no injunction issued by SC.
      • TV5 filed Petition for Review (Rule 43) before the CA; CA granted TRO and preliminary injunction, then on March 7, 2013 set aside MTRCB Decision.
      • CA denied MTRCB Motion for Reconsideration (May 15, 2014).
      • MTRCB elevated case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

Issues:

  • Whether the MTRCB’s determination that the Tulfo brothers’ utterances violated Section 3(c) of PD 1986 was within its authority to censor “immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, or with dangerous tendency to encourage…violence.”

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.