Title
Cuenco vs. Cuenco
Case
G.R. No. L-29560
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1976
A congressman sued for libel over a newspaper article alleging fraud; court ruled publication privileged as a fair report of a judicial proceeding, dismissing damages.
libel case
lack of evidence
conspiracy

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29560)

Factual Background

On November 15, 1958, Miguel Cuenco filed a complaint against Manuel Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, and Federico A. Reyes (as president, secretary-treasurer, and general manager of the transportation company), Jesus P. Velez (as a director), and Dioscoro B. Lazaro (as publisher and business manager of “The Republic Daily”). He later amended the complaint to include Atty. Nicolas Jumapao.

The complaint alleged that on or about August 3, 1958, “The Republic Daily,” Issue No. 182, Volume X, published and circulated a newspaper article and headlines stating, in substance, that Rep. Miguel Cuenco was sued by the Bisaya Land Transportation Company, Inc. for alleged illegal and unlawful collections made by him and that the complaint presented causes of action involving alleged overdrawn salary and alleged unauthorized attorney’s fees collected in violation of a constitutional inhibition. The article reflected that the company sought return of alleged illegal collections and included a discussion of an alleged inability of an incumbent member of Congress to lawfully appear as counsel in certain cases and to collect fees connected with such appearances.

The plaintiff also alleged that the publication was intended to “ridicule, defame, belittle” him, to injure his honor and good name, to cause him mental suffering and humiliation, and to impeach his honesty and integrity. He claimed actual and moral damages in the aggregate of P800,000, exemplary damages of P100,000, and attorney’s fees of P100,000.

As to Manuel Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, Jesus P. Velez, and Federico A. Reyes, Cuenco asserted that they maliciously retaliated against him for filing mandamus and injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 36498). He further alleged that at the time of publication the cited complaint had not yet been acted upon.

In response, the defendants denied responsibility for the publication and invoked defenses of good faith and fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. Dioscoro B. Lazaro and Nicolas Jumapao each denied participation in any conspiratorial scheme and asserted that they merely reported in good faith and without comments or remarks. Lazaro averred that he copied and published the newspaper item as a newspaperman would, based on the complaint filed in court.

Procedurally, the trial court later addressed a defense that the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, but this motion was denied in an order dated March 12, 1964. After trial, the court rendered its decision on August 12, 1967.

Trial Court Proceedings and Dispositive Findings

The trial court framed its decision around five issues: whether there was conspiracy in the composition and publication of the questioned article; whether the article and headlines were libelous; whether the publication was privileged; whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages; and whether defendants were entitled to recover on their counterclaims.

On the question of conspiracy, the trial court held that plaintiff failed to prove the alleged conspiracy by sufficient and convincing evidence. It ruled that Dioscoro Lazaro composed and published the questioned article alone. It further concluded that the publication was not privileged because the complaint reproduced in the newspaper was not treated as part of a judicial proceeding with corresponding court action at the relevant time.

As to libel, the trial court held that the article was libelous per se, because it imputed illegal acts and wrongdoings to the plaintiff and depicted him as having violated the constitutional inhibition applicable to members of Congress and as having illegally collected attorney’s fees. It characterized the publication as not motivated by malice. Consequently, although it recognized that the plaintiff’s reputation was adversely affected and that a substantial award would ordinarily follow, it found mitigating circumstances and awarded only P2,000 against Dioscoro Lazaro.

The trial court dismissed the complaint as to Dr. Manuel Cuenco, Jesus P. Velez, Jose Velez, and Atty. Nicolas Jumapao, and it did not award the damages requested in the counterclaim in the manner urged on appeal.

Parties’ Appellate Positions

On appeal, Miguel Cuenco argued principally that the trial court erred in finding that Lazaro acted alone, in holding that no conspiracy was established, and in treating malice as absent such that damages were limited to a nominal sum. He also challenged the weight given to the testimonial evidence supporting defendants’ narrative.

Conversely, Dioscoro Lazaro and Nicolas Jumapao argued that the trial court erred in holding that the publication of a complaint reproduced from court pleadings was not privileged, that it treated the reproduced complaint as libelous per se without the proper consequences of privileged communication, and that the damages awarded were unwarranted. Jumapao specifically assailed the failure to award him damages as prayed for in his counterclaim.

Issue on Conspiracy in Publication

The Court treated the issue of whether plaintiff proved a conspiracy among the defendants as the crucial matter affecting possible liability.

Plaintiff’s account was that on August 2, 1958, Dr. Manuel Cuenco and Attorney Nicolas Jumapao went to Lazaro’s office; the plaintiff alleged that Dr. Cuenco dictated an article to Mrs. Palicte, that she typed the combined articles, and that the resulting paper was delivered to Lazaro, who passed it to the linotypist and printing personnel. Plaintiff further alleged that Captain Federico Reyes obtained the printed continuation and that additional activities were carried out to bring the article to publication. Plaintiff emphasized the existence of a retaliatory motive and asserted that defendants conspired to ridicule and defame him.

Defendants presented a contrary account. They maintained that Lazaro merely copied the complaint from court and composed the headlines and news article in the ordinary manner followed by newspapermen. They denied Dr. Manuel Cuenco’s presence at Lazaro’s office for dictation, denied that Atty. Jumapao went to Lazaro’s office in that morning, denied participation by Federico Reyes, and asserted that the article was prepared on the basis of the court complaint and published according to standard newspaper printing procedures.

Court’s Evaluation of the Evidence on Conspiracy

The Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion on conspiracy. It found no reversible error in the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility and its reasoning on the sequence of printing and composition. The Court emphasized that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and had found defendants’ version more persuasive.

The Court specifically accepted the trial court’s view that plaintiff’s principal witness, Guisadio, did not withstand scrutiny due to inherent improbabilities and doubts raised as to credibility. It considered that plaintiff’s version depended heavily on discredited testimony, and it noted that motive alone would not establish conspiracy when evidence remained capable of explanation consistent with innocence. The Court thus concluded that plaintiff failed to establish conspiracy by a convincing preponderance of evidence.

On that basis, the Court treated Lazaro as the sole author and publisher of the questioned newspaper article, consistent with the conclusion already reached by the trial court.

Libelous Character of the Publication Versus Privileged Communication

With conspiracy resolved against the plaintiff, the Court turned to the legal question whether Lazaro could be held liable for publication given the nature of what was published.

The Court observed that the newspaper article consisted of the gist of a civil complaint and, in substantial part, a verbatim reproduction of the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 5665 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, without remarks or comments by the newspaper writer. The Court agreed with the trial court that the published complaint contained accusations against the plaintiff and that such imputations—viewed as charges made in a manner that placed the plaintiff in ridicule and dishonor—rendered the matter libelous per se.

However, the Court then departed from the trial court on the consequence of privilege. The trial court had reasoned that the publication was not privileged because it occurred before the court took any action and before the plaintiff had filed an answer. The Court did not accept this restriction. It reasoned that pleadings filed in judicial proceedings are generally entitled to absolute privilege, because their inclusion in the public record is tied to lawful and legal assertions expected to be tested by court scrutiny.

The Court found persuasive the doctrine that a fair and true report of a complaint filed in court, made without remarks or comments and even before an answer or decision, should fall under the protective mantle of privileged communication. It cited earlier rulings including Tupas v. Parreno, L-12545 (April 30, 1959) as well as Sison v. David, G.R. No. L-11268 (January 28, 1961) and Tolentino v. Baylosis, G.R. No. L-15742 (January 31, 1961), which recognized exemption from libel or slander liability for statements connected with judicial proceedings when they are relevant or pertinent to the cause in hand.

Applying these principles, the Court ruled that although the publication could be deemed libelous per se, the reproduced complaint in Civil Case No. 5665 was protected as privileged communication. Consequently, Lazaro, as author and publisher, could not be held liable for its publication.

The Court further reasoned that the trial court’s approach—distinguishing between pleadings treated as privileged due to court action in another case and this earlier complaint because it was a distinct pleading—was not a sound ba

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms