Case Summary (G.R. No. 242577)
Background of the Dispute
On October 25, 2013, an email from Macapagal's executive assistant was sent to Domingo’s law firm, asserting that Domingo had overcharged Unilever Philippines for legal services provided, citing the standard fees stipulated in a prior agreement. This communication incited a terse response from Domingo, prompting Macapagal to send a follow-up letter on October 30, 2013, reiterating the basis for Unilever's accusations. Feeling aggrieved by these communications, Domingo subsequently filed a libel complaint against Macapagal.
Initial Proceedings and Resolutions
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City initially dismissed Domingo's libel complaint on May 11, 2015, concluding that there was no probable cause to indict Macapagal. Following Domingo's motion for reconsideration, the Office reversed its position, leading to the filing of a criminal information for libel on July 27, 2015. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an order for Macapagal's arrest. However, this was later dismissed on March 7, 2016, upon Macapagal's motion for reconsideration.
Developments in the Court System
Domingo's attempt to overturn the dismissal through an appeal to the Court of Appeals was initially dismissed on the basis of mootness; however, the appellate court later acknowledged that the RTC had overstepped its jurisdiction by dismissing the case after already finding probable cause. Despite this, the Court of Appeals subsequently amended its decision, effectively reinstating the RTC's dismissal of the libel case, asserting that the statements made by Macapagal were not defamatory.
Issues Presented
Two primary issues were highlighted in the petition: first, whether the RTC judge abused discretion by dismissing the libel case against Macapagal; and second, whether Macapagal's communications constituted libel. Domingo argued that the RTC’s dismissal constituted a usurpation of executive function and that there was evidence of malice in Macapagal's statements.
Court's Rulings and Reasoning
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Domingo’s petition lacked merit. It noted that Domingo had misused the procedural mechanism of certiorari instead of a regular appeal and failed to file a notice of appeal within the designated time, thereby relinquishing his right to contest
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 242577)
Antecedents
- The case originates from a criminal complaint for Libel filed by Rico V. Domingo (petitioner), who is the sole proprietor of R.V. Domingo and Associates Law Firm, against Ramon Gil Santos Macapagal (respondent), Vice President for Corporate Affairs and Sustainability of Unilever Philippines, Inc. (ULP).
- The complaint was lodged with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City and was assigned docket number N.P.S. No. XV-03-INV-141-10445.
- The factual background of the case is detailed in the Court of Appeals (CA) decision, particularly focusing on an email exchange between the petitioner’s employee, Rowena J. Viacrucis, and the respondent’s Executive Assistant regarding billing disputes.
Key Email Communications
- On October 25, 2013, respondent's assistant sent an email to petitioner’s firm addressing overbilling issues, stating that the billing rates exceeded those specified in a 2001 fee schedule.
- The email requested corrections to the invoices submitted by petitioner’s firm, which were deemed excessively charged.
- Petitioner’s response was marked by irritation, leading to a second communication from respondent on October 30, 2013, which included a detailed rebuttal to petitioner’s claims regarding the billing rates and amendments to the original agreement.
Filing of Criminal Libel Complaint
- Following the exchange of emails, petitioner filed a criminal libel complaint against respondent, believing the latter's communications to be defamatory.
- The OCP-Quezon City i