Case Summary (G.R. No. 210308)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Lumen Policarpio
Respondents: The Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc.; Constante C. Roldan (reporter); Manuel V. Villa-Real (managing editor); E. Aguilar Cruz (associate editor); Consorcio Borje (news editor).
Key Dates
• August 8, 1956 – Reyes files criminal complaints for malversation and estafa.
• August 11, 1956 – The Saturday Mirror publishes the first article.
• August 13, 1956 – The Daily Mirror publishes the second article with partial corrections.
• May 30, 1962 – Supreme Court decision on appeal.
Applicable Law
• 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force at time of decision)
• Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 354 (presumption of malice in defamation), Arts. 315–318 (estafa and malversation)
• Civil Code Arts. 2176, 2194, 2208, 2219(I) (liability for negligence and damages)
Factual Background
Policarpio initiated administrative proceedings resulting in Reyes’s separation from service. Reyes then filed administrative and criminal complaints against Policarpio for misuse of UNESCO stencils (estimated at 18–20 sheets worth ₱54) and reimbursement of travel expenses. The Saturday Mirror headline “Woman Official Sued” and sub-headline “PCAC Raps L. Policarpio on Frauds” wrongly implied that the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission itself filed criminal charges following its investigation. The articles omitted material details about the small value involved and misstated the source and scope of the complaints.
Errors and Defamatory Content
The first article contained at least two false assertions: that the PCAC had filed criminal charges and that the administrative probe had initiated those charges. By omitting the limited quantity and low value of the stencils and misstating travel dates, the publication portrayed the alleged offenses as more egregious. The second article corrected major inaccuracies (clarifying that the PCAC and Col. Alba did not file the complaints and stating the number of stencils) but did not erase responsibility for the initial defamation.
Court’s Analysis on Malice and Fair Report Privilege
Under RPC Art. 354, any defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless made with good faith, justifiable motive, and as a fair and true report of non-confidential official proceedings. The
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210308)
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Lumen Policarpio, a member of the Philippine Bar and executive secretary of the local UNESCO National Commission.
- Defendants-Appellees: The Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc. (publisher of The Saturday Mirror and The Daily Mirror) and journalists Constante C. Roldan, Manuel V. Villa-Real, E. Aguilar Cruz, and Consorcio Borje.
- Cause of Action: Action for damages and attorney’s fees due to allegedly per se defamatory, libelous and false news items published on August 11 and August 13, 1956.
- Relief Sought: Actual damages (₱150,000.00), moral damages (₱70,000.00), correctional and exemplary damages (₱60,000.00), attorney’s fees (₱20,000.00), plus costs.
- Counterclaim: Defendants sought ₱10,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Factual Background
- Prior to August 1956, Policarpio, as executive secretary of the UNESCO National Commission, had preferred administrative charges against subordinate Herminia D. Reyes.
- Reyes was separated from service and in turn filed counter-charges, referred to Col. Crisanto V. Alba of the Office of the President.
- On August 8, 1956, Reyes filed with the Manila City Fiscal complaints for malversation of public funds and estafa through falsification of public documents, scheduled for preliminary investigation on August 22, 1956.
Content of the Publications
- The Saturday Mirror (August 11, 1956) front-page banner: “WOMAN OFFICIAL SUED” with subtitle “PCAC RAPS L. POLICARPIO ON FRAUDS.”
- First article by Constante C. Roldan alleged:
- Policarpio was charged with malversation and estafa by the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission (PCAC) with the city fiscal.
- Administrative inquiry by Col. Alba prompted criminal action.
- Use of UNESCO stencils for private purposes (French lessons, piano‐sale contracts, League of Women Voters invitations).
- Falsified reimbursement vouchers for official tri