G.R. No. L-17898 - Ago vs. Court of Appeals

Nanerico D. Santos, then a columnist of the Manila Daily Bulletin, published an article entitled "Charges Against CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc." on February 23, 1970.
The article reproduced word-for-word a complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 13, 1970 by Rosario Sison Sandejas and her daughters, which charged CMS Stock Brokerage Inc., particularly its board chairman Carlos Moran Sison and its president-general manager Luis F. Sison, with fraudulent practices in the stock market.

On the same day of publication, Carlos Moran Sison met with petitioner Santos at the Andres Soriano Executive Center in Makati to submit his reply, requesting publication the next day.
Santos promised to publish the reply in the February 25, 1970 issue of the Bulletin; however, when the reply failed to appear as promised, Sison cancelled the arrangement and warned him of impending libel charges.

A libel complaint was formally lodged on March 4, 1970 by Carlos Moran Sison and Luis F. Sison against Santos and other colleagues of the Manila Daily Bulletin.
The case progressed through the judicial system, with the lower court dismissing the complaints against all accused except Santos, who was eventually convicted for libel.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, relying on earlier jurisprudence from Barretto vs. Philippine Publishing Co. and Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine Publishing Co., which held that publishing a complaint before judicial action is taken provided no privilege as a judicial proceeding report.
The central legal issue was whether the publication of a complaint filed with the SEC constituted a privileged report of a judicial proceeding.

The applicable legal provision was Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, which outlines the rule of privileged communications in defamatory imputation cases.
Under Article 354, communications made in good faith as a fair and true report of judicial or official proceedings enjoy privilege unless brought into disrepute by express malice.
Petitioner Santos maintained that his article, being a verbatim reproduction of the SEC complaint with a neutral concluding remark, was thus authorized as a mere reportage of a judicial proceeding.

Whether the publication of a complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission before any judicial action qualifies as a "fair and true report" of a judicial proceeding under Article 354 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether such publication, without additional comments or remarks, should be granted the protection of privileged communications in libel cases.

The validity and current applicability of the rulings in Barretto vs. Philippine Publishing Co. and Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine Publishing Co. in the context of privileged communications.
Whether these precedents had been superseded by later decisions such as Cuenco vs. Cuenco and Manuel vs. Pano.

Whether the prosecution successfully established that Santos acted with malice in publishing the complaint.
The issue of whether any indications of malice in the column could strip the publication of its privilege under Article 362 of the Revised Penal Code.