G.R. No. 48135 - Montenegro vs. Medina

The case involves a civil action where the defendant, Enrique Medina, filed a separate action for damages against the plaintiff, Felix Montenegro, claiming that a paragraph in a previous complaint was libelous.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the order to strike out the paragraph had not yet become final, asserting that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action.
The dismissal was deemed erroneous as it lacked legal basis, indicating that a separate action for libel can be initiated regardless of the status of the previous complaint.

An action for libel accrues from the date of publication and must be filed within two years.
The plaintiff's motion to strike out the allegedly libelous statement does not impede his right to file an independent action for damages.
The court clarified that motions to strike and actions for damages can be pursued simultaneously and are not mutually exclusive.

For a statement to be protected by privilege in judicial proceedings, it must be pertinent and relevant to the case at hand.
The court noted that the allegations in paragraph 24 were claimed to be immaterial and irrelevant, which, if hypothetically accepted, would mean they are not privileged.
The statements made in paragraph 24 were found to be libelous per se, as they severely impacted the plaintiff's moral character and reputation.

The trial court's assumption that a declaration of immateriality was necessary before a libel action could be initiated was incorrect.
Citing previous cases, the court reaffirmed that statements made in judicial proceedings are only privileged if they are relevant to the case.
The court did not need to determine the relevance of the statements in paragraph 24 since the case was under demurrer, and the allegations were hypothetically admitted.

The defendant's argument that the plaintiff should have raised his claim for damages in the same civil case was rejected, as the claim did not exist at the time of the original case.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff was not obligated to present his claim as a counterclaim in the earlier case.
The court did not address whether specific provisions al...continue reading