Case Summary (G.R. No. 143372)
Trial Court Ruling
The RTC held the publication was a qualifiedly privileged report of an official communication. It found no malice, dismissed the libel complaint, and recognized the press’s duty to inform on public interest matters.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA reversed, applying Civil Code Article 19’s duty to act with justice, honesty, and good faith. It determined Thoenen was a private individual entitled to pre–publication verification. The CA found negligent omission of basic fact–checking constituted wrongful abuse of rights and held petitioners liable for libel, awarding moral (₱200,000), exemplary (₱50,000) damages, and attorney’s fees (₱30,000).
Issue on Qualified Privilege and Freedom of Speech
Petitioners argued constitutional protection for fair reporting of official communications and the absence of malice. They contended that reliance on a Bureau of Immigration letter conferred qualified privilege and shifted the burden of proving malice to Thoenen.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Libel and Privileged Communication
The Court reaffirmed that freedom of speech and of the press under the 1987 Constitution is not absolute and excludes libelous falsehoods. Libel requires an imputation of discreditable conduct, publication, identity, and malice. Malice is presumed unless petitioners prove good faith and justifiable motive under Revised Penal Code Article 354.
Finding on Malice and Protected Speech
The Court held the article was neither a private communication nor a fair and true report without comment. Petitioners failed to verify source authenticity or contact Thoenen. The letter lost any qualified privilege once published to the general public. As Thoenen is a private individual, not a public fig
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143372)
Facts
- On September 30, 1990, People’s Journal published a tabloid news item entitled “Swiss Shoots Neighbors’ Pets,” alleging that a Swiss national, Francis Thoenen, shot wayward pets in a Parañaque subdivision and that residents petitioned the Bureau of Immigration for his deportation.
- Thoenen, a retired engineer permanently residing in the Philippines, claimed the report was false and defamatory; he alleged damage to his reputation, mental anguish, and harassment by neighbors and callers.
- He filed a civil suit for P200,000 moral damages, P100,000 exemplary damages, and P50,000 attorney’s fees against Philippine Journalists, Inc., publisher Zacarias Nuguid, Jr., and reporter Cristina Lee.
- The petitioners acknowledged publication in good faith, citing a letter from “Atty. Efren Angara” to the Bureau of Immigration as their primary source, and invoked a qualified privilege for reporting an “official communication.”
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (Makati, Branch 62) dismissed Thoenen’s complaint, holding the publication qualifiedly privileged and made without malice.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code, no bona fide effort to verify facts, and awarded P200,000 moral, P50,000 exemplary damages, and P30,000 legal fees.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Rule 45 certiorari petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the news article was a qualifiedly privileged communication protected from libel liability.
- Whether the petitioners acte