Title
Soriano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 72383
Decision Date
Nov 9, 1988
Libel case against Marcelo Soriano over article accusing COA Chairman Tantuico of election tampering; Supreme Court ruled proper venue is Quezon City, not Leyte, reversing lower courts.
libel case
accusation
tampering

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72383)

Factual Background

The complainant, Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., then Chairman of the Commission on Audit, alleged that press releases and articles published in May 1984 imputed to him the orchestration of tampering election returns in the May 14, 1984 Batasan elections in Leyte. The disputed material originated as a press release prepared by accused Cesar G. Villegas in Tacloban City and was reproduced in THE GUARDIAN in an article captioned “IMPEACH TANTUICO CASE LOOMS.” The article purportedly described events at the COA Regional Office in Palo and at Tantuico’s residence, and it alleged direction by Tantuico to alter returns to favor certain candidates.

Information and Charges

The City Fiscal of Tacloban filed an information in Leyte charging Marcelo B. Soriano and six others with libel. The information alleged publication/republishing in THE GUARDIAN dated May 26–June 1, 1984 of the press release originally circulated in Tacloban on May 19, 1984 and contended that the publication accused Chairman Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. of falsification of public documents and violations of election laws, thereby injuring his reputation.

Motion to Quash and Trial Court Ruling

Petitioner Marcelo B. Soriano moved to quash the information on the ground that the Leyte court lacked jurisdiction under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code because the offended public officer held office in Quezon City and the libelous material was printed and first published in Quezon City where THE GUARDIAN maintained its editorial and business offices. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion in a resolution dated May 16, 1985, reasoning that the press release was printed and first published in Tacloban and that venue had been properly laid in Leyte.

Intermediate Appellate Court Proceedings

Petitioner sought relief by way of certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction in the Intermediate Appellate Court, which dismissed the petition on September 12, 1985 and denied a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court accepted the trial court’s view that the information’s allegations fixed venue in Leyte.

Legal Issue Presented

The sole issue before this Court was whether the Regional Trial Court of Leyte had jurisdiction to try the libel case against petitioner Marcelo B. Soriano, a Metro Manila editor-publisher, in light of the venue provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code when one offended party was a public officer.

Applicable Law

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1289 and Republic Act No. 4363, prescribes the places where the criminal action for written defamation may be filed: the court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or the court of the province or city where the offended party actually resided or held office at the time of the offense, subject to special rules when the offended party is a public officer. This Court in Agbayani v. Sayo distilled the statutory choices and recognized that venue may be the place of first publication or the place of the offended party’s residence or office as the statute provides.

Parties’ Contentions

The petitioner argued that the Leyte courts lacked jurisdiction because the offending publication in THE GUARDIAN was printed and first published in Quezon City where Marcelo B. Soriano maintained editorial and business offices and where Chairman Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. held office; hence, the proper venue was a Quezon City court. The trial court and the appellate court relied on the information’s allegation that the press release was printed and first published in Tacloban to sustain Leyte venue. The Solicitor General, appearing for the public respondent, agreed with the petitioner and argued that the information did not properly allege that the libelous publication in THE GUARDIAN was first printed in Tacloban and that each separate publication constitutes a distinct cause of action under the multiple publication rule.

Court’s Analysis on the Multiple Publication Rule

The Court adopted the multiple publication rule, recognizing that each transmission or communication of written defamatory matter gives rise to a separate offense for purposes of jurisdiction under Article 360. The Court explained that the amendments to Article 360 sought to prevent harassment of media practitioners by suits brought in any place where a newspaper might be sold or circulated, and that construing the place of “printing and first publication” to include the original typing or mimeographing of press releases in other localities would frustrate that purpose.

Application of Law to Soriano

Applying the doctrine, the Court held that petitioner Marcelo B. Soriano’s alleged liability derived from the publication of the Villegas press release in THE GUARDIAN and that venue for that separate publication must be determined by where THE GUARDIAN was printed and first published. The Court found that the May 26–June 1, 1984 issue of THE GUARDIAN indicated editorial and business offices in Cubao, Quezon City and that there was no showing that Soriano prepared or distributed the press release from Tacloban. Consequently, the Leyte court lacked jurisdiction over Soriano because the offended party, a public officer, held office in Quezon City and the alleged libelous publication by THE GUARDIAN was printed and first published in Quezon City.

Solicitor General’s Position and Corroboration

The Solicitor General, assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Solicitor Aurora Cortes-Jorge, contended that the information only alleged that the Villegas press release was first circulated in Ta

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms