Title
Supreme Court
Ocampo vs. Sun-Star Publishing, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 133575
Decision Date
Dec 15, 2000
Judge Ocampo sued Sun-Star Daily for libel over articles reporting graft charges against him. The Supreme Court ruled the articles were fair, true, and without malice, dismissing the case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133575)

Nature of the Complaint

Judge Ocampo's complaint for libel stemmed from two specific articles that detailed allegations of graft charges against him before the Office of the Ombudsman. The first article reported on Tan's accusations regarding Ocampo's conduct in a case related to the Millennium Industrial Commercial Corp. (MICC), wherein it was argued that Ocampo had improperly granted a petition for relief from a prior dismissal of the case. The second article featured Ocampo's reaction to the allegations and his assertion regarding the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Lower Court's Ruling

On April 20, 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57, dismissed Ocampo’s complaint for libel, ruling that the articles were published without malice. The trial court concluded that the articles were fair reports concerning ongoing judicial proceedings and thus fell under legitimate exceptions to the presumption of malice in defamation cases.

Legal Principles Involved

The applicable law regarding libel is based on Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, which presumes that defamatory imputations are malicious unless certain exceptions are met. The court evaluated the published articles against these exceptions, affirming that the articles constituted fair and true reports of judicial and administrative proceedings. The court noted that both articles quoted the affidavit-complaint and included responses from Ocampo, thereby demonstrating fairness in reporting.

Analysis of Fair Reporting and Malice

The court identified three key factors supporting its decision:

  1. Truthfulness: The articles reported on actual events, specifically the allegations and the context of the complaint filed against Ocampo, thereby satisfying the requirement of factual accuracy.
  2. No Personal Attack: The articles did not contain any commentary or personal opinions but strictly reported the contents of the complaint and Ocampo's reactions, indicating the absence of malice.
  3. Opportunity to Respond: The reporting included Ocampo’s responses, showcasing an effort to provide a balanced account and indicating fairness in journalism.

Legal Precedents

The court referenced various cases and statutory provisions, including the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) and the implications of public interest in reports of misconduct against public officials. The decision highlighted the judiciary's interest in transparency and accountability, particularly concerning allegations of corruption and misconduct wit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.