Case Summary (A.M. No. P-12-3080)
Relevant Dates
- February 13, 1970: Complaint filed with the SEC.
- February 23, 1970: Article published by Santos in the Manila Daily Bulletin.
- March 4, 1970: Libel complaint filed by the Sison brothers against Santos and others.
- November 16, 1970: Information filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
- August 25, 1976: Decision by the Court of Appeals affirming Santos's conviction.
- October 21, 1991: Decision of the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
This case primarily involves the interpretation of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 354, which outlines the criteria for what constitutes a privileged communication, particularly focusing on the fair and true reporting of judicial proceedings.
Facts of the Case
On February 23, 1970, Santos published an article titled "Charges Against CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc." that verbatim quoted a complaint filed with the SEC by Rosario Sison Sandejas and her daughters, which accused CMS Stock Brokerage Inc. and its officers, including Carlos and Luis Sison, of fraudulent practices. Following the publication, Carlos Sison approached Santos to provide a response, which was not published as promised. This led to Sison threatening Santos with a libel suit, which indeed materialized when the formal complaint was filed a week later.
Judicial Proceedings and Findings
Initially, all other co-accused were dismissed from the suit, but Santos was convicted of libel by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on the basis that Santos’s article was not a privileged communication. Citing precedents like Barretto vs. Philippine Publishing Co. and Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine Publishing Co., the Court of Appeals ruled that since the complaint had not yet led to a judicial proceeding with both parties present, the article was deemed libelous.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court examined whether the publication of the complaint constituted a privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. It acknowledged that malice is presumed in cases of defamatory statements unless proven otherwise. The Court highlighted evolving interpretations of what constitutes privileged communications, particularly referencing Cuenco vs. Cuenco, which indicated that the nature of pleadings as public records should shield responsible reporting from libel claims.
The Supreme Court favored the position that a patient and faithful reproduction of a complaint without embellishments or malicious intent should qualify as a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The Court found no evidence sugge
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. P-12-3080)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review filed by Nanerico D. Santos against the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 25, 1976, which upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII (Pasig).
- Santos was convicted of libel and sentenced to pay a fine of P6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the offended parties, Carlos Moran Sison and Luis F. Sison, in the amount of P50,000.00 for damages and costs.
Background of the Case
- On February 23, 1970, Santos published an article in the Manila Daily Bulletin titled "Charges Against CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc." This article was a verbatim reproduction of an unverified complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by Rosario Sison Sandejas and her daughters against CMS Stock Brokerage Inc., its chairman, Carlos Moran Sison, and president-general manager, Luis F. Sison.
- The published article alleged fraudulent practices in the stock market by the parties mentioned.
Events Leading to the Libel Charge
- Following the publication, Carlos Moran Sison approached Santos to provide a response to the article, which Santos promised to publish in the subsequent issue. However, the response was not published as promised.
- Sison subsequently informed Santos via phone that he would not pursue the publication of the response and threatened to sue Santos for libel.
- Santos,