G.R. No. 194214 - Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People

Petitioner Marilou Punongbayan-Visitacion (Visitacion) served as the corporate secretary and assistant treasurer of St. Peter's College of Iligan City.
On 26 July 1999, acting upon legal counsel's advice, Visitacion wrote a letter addressed to private respondent Carmelita P. Punongbayan (Punongbayan).
In the letter, Visitacion alleged that Punongbayan falsely represented herself as the school’s validly appointed president, questioned the legitimacy of a March 10 meeting, and accused Punongbayan of acts of falsification in misrepresenting her signature’s necessity for check disbursements above P5,000.

Feeling insulted, Punongbayan filed a Complaint for Libel against Visitacion.
On 25 October 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City approved the filing of the libel case.

On 12 May 2003, RTC found Visitacion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of libel.
The court rejected Visitacion’s defense of good faith, citing malice and hostility, and noting the uncivil tone of the letter.
RTC sentenced Visitacion to one (1) year imprisonment with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
RTC ordered Visitacion to pay Punongbayan moral damages amounting to Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) and awarded costs of suit, reasoning that the libelous letter caused public ridicule and moral suffering to Punongbayan.

Visitacion filed a petition for certiorari with a request for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction with the CA, contesting the RTC ruling.
On 30 January 2009, the CA dismissed the petition, upholding the RTC’s judgment.

CA ruled that the promulgation of judgment in absentia was proper under Rule 120, Section 6 of the Rules of Court since Visitacion had been sufficiently notified and failed to appear.
CA found Visitacion’s excuses for absence lack credibility.
The CA emphasized that the correct remedy was an appeal, not certiorari, especially given the appeal period had not expired at the time of filing.

Visitacion elevated the case through a petition for review on certiorari, raising the following issues:

The alleged erroneous dismissal of her plea for the preference of fine over imprisonment in libel cases.
The unreasonableness of the amount of moral damages awarded (P3,000,000.00).
The CA’s refusal to treat her petition for certiorari as a valid appeal despite timely filing and valid reasons.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Visitacion’s alternative plea for preference of a fine over imprisonment as penalty for libel.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s imposition of excessive moral damages amounting to Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) against Visitacion.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not treating Visitacion’s petition for certiorari as an appeal despite its timely filing and valid reasons warranting such treatment.