Case Digest (G.R. No. 223451)
Facts:
Antonio F. Trillanes IV v. Hon. Evangeline C. Castillo-Marigomen and Antonio L. Tiu, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018, First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV authored Proposed Senate Resolution No. 826 to investigate alleged overpricing and related anomalies in Makati City projects. At sub-committee hearings, former Makati Vice Mayor Ernesto Mercado testified about the consolidation and development of a large estate (the so-called Hacienda Binay) and implicated former Vice President Jejomar Binay. In media interviews between October 8 and 14, 2014, petitioner said private respondent Antonio L. Tiu appeared to be a “front,” “nominee” or “dummy” for VP Binay with respect to the estate.
On October 22, 2014 private respondent filed a Complaint for Damages (Civil Case No. R-QZN-14-10666-CV) alleging defamatory statements by petitioner in the media that caused reputational injury and alleged economic consequences to companies he manages. Petitioner answered and, in that Answer with Motion to Dismiss, raised special and affirmative defenses: (1) the statements were factual and based on documents and testimony; (2) petitioner’s remarks were protected by freedom of expression and fair comment because private respondent had entered the public debate; and (3) parliamentary immunity under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution shielded him.
Petitioner also filed a Motion (to Set Special and Affirmative Defenses for Preliminary Hearing) invoking Section 6, Rule 16, seeking a preliminary hearing on his defenses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 101, Quezon City (public respondent Judge Castillo-Marigomen) denied the motion to dismiss and found a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses could proceed; it concluded the question whether the statements were made within the sphere of privileged “speech or debate” required full trial. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 16, 2015.
Petitioner brought a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the RTC’s May 19 and December 16, 2015 Orders for grave abuse of discretion. Private respondent oppo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s direct filing with the Supreme Court proper, or did he improperly bypass the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration?
- Are petitioner’s media statements protected by parliamentary immunity under Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution?
- Was a preliminary hearing on petitioner’s special and affirmative defenses required despite his having invoked failure/lack of cause of action, and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)