Title
Tieng vs. Palacio-Alaras
Case
G.R. No. 164845
Decision Date
Jul 13, 2021
Henares charged with libel for defamatory radio/TV broadcasts; SC ruled Article 360 RPC applies only to written defamation, not broadcasts; upheld RTC jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19885)

Factual matrix and charges alleged

The complaints allege that Henares, as commentator/broadcaster of a daily radio and television program, made statements imputing criminality, corruption, smuggling, production of pornographic films, piracy, and other dishonorable acts to the Tieng brothers. Multiple criminal Informations and a civil complaint for damages were filed in different RTC branches (Parañaque and Makati), with some broadcasts heard or viewed via DWBR-FM 104.3 and IBC-13 on late November 2001 dates.

Trial court motions to quash and initial rulings

Henares filed motions to quash certain Informations on grounds that the Informations failed to conform to Article 360’s jurisdictional requirements (i.e., alleging where the libelous matter was "printed and first published" or where the offended party resided). RTCs in some instances denied the motions to quash and asserted that Article 360 applied to written publications only, applying instead the general venue rule under Rule 110, Sec. 15. In the civil case, an RTC branch dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, relying on Article 360’s provisos regarding consolidation and the court that first acquired jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals rulings

The Court of Appeals issued conflicting rulings in the separate petitions: in one CA decision, it denied Henares’ petition and treated Article 360 as inapplicable to radio (holding written defamation exclusive to Article 360’s rules); in another CA decision the Court of Appeals granted the petition and quashed the Informations for failure to allege the situs of first publication under Article 360 (treating “written defamations” as including defamation by means of radio and similar means under Article 355). These divergent CA outcomes prompted further review.

Legal issues presented

The consolidated petitions posed three principal legal questions: (1) whether Articles 355 and 360 of the Revised Penal Code, and the venue/jurisdictional rules of Article 360 as amended by R.A. 4363, apply to libel committed by radio and television broadcasts; (2) whether the Makati RTC’s dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-359 complied with Article 360; and (3) whether venue under Article 360 is jurisdictional for civil libel actions (i.e., whether civil venue may be waived).

Governing statutory text and legislative purpose

Article 355 defines libel as committed “by writings or similar means” and explicitly enumerates radio and other media among those means. Article 360 (third paragraph), as amended by R.A. 4363, prescribes that criminal and civil actions for written defamations be filed in the court where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any offended party actually resides, and further provides that the court where either action is first filed acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. The amendment’s legislative purpose was to prevent harassment and forum-shopping by limiting the offended party’s choice of venue, thereby avoiding out-of-town or remote litigations intended to inconvenience accused persons.

Holding on applicability of Article 360 to radio and television

The Court held that Article 360’s venue and jurisdictional rules do apply to libel committed through radio and television broadcasts. The Court rejected an overly literal reading that would confine Article 360 exclusively to printed, written publications; it applied precedent (e.g., Bocobo, Agbayani) and the amendment’s remedial purpose to conclude that broadcasts by “similar means” enumerated in Article 355 fall within Article 360’s protective venue regime to prevent harassment and undue forum choice.

Interpretation of “printed and first published” for broadcasts

For radio and television, the Court construed “where the article is printed and first published” to mean the physical locus from which the broadcast originates—i.e., the location of the radio or television station’s offices or facilities from which the transmission was made. Alternatively, if the prosecution cannot reasonably identify or allege the station’s situs, Article 360 allows the offended party to rely on the offended person’s actual residence at the time of the offense. Accordingly, Informations alleging broadcast libel must specify either the station’s location or the offended party’s residence so that the court acquires jurisdiction.

Consequences for the criminal Informations at issue

Applying the foregoing rules, the Court found the Informations deficient where they failed to allege either the precise location of the broadcasting station (e.g., DWBR-FM 104.3 or IBC-13) as the situs of first publication or the offended party’s residence at the time of the broadcasts. As a result: (a) in G.R. No. 185315 the Court reversed the CA and quashed Information No. 02-0194 for lack of jurisdiction (granting Henares’ petition); and (b) in G.R. No. 181732 the Court denied the petition (i.e., affirmed the CA) which had quashed the three Informations there because they likewise failed to satisfy Article 360’s allegation requirements. The Court noted that one of the criminal cases had subsequently been tried and resulted in an acquittal, rendering that petition effectively moot, but proceeded to decide the legal question because it was capable of repetition yet evading review.

Civil venue, consolidation, and jurisdictional effect of Article 360

The Court clarified that Article 360 imposes jurisdictional venue requirements in civil libel actions as well. Unlike most civil venue rules (procedural and waivable), the special venue rules under Article 360 were enacted to confer exclusive jurisdiction on particular RTCs and therefore must be strictly observed; improper venue under Article 360 means the court does not acquire jurisdiction and the defect cannot be cured by waiver or estoppel. The rule that civil and criminal libel actions should be filed in the same court—if filed separately, they must be consolidated in the court that first acquired jurisdiction—was reaffirmed (consistent with Cojuanco and related authorities). Applying this, the Court held the Makati RTC correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 02-359 for lack of jurisdiction where the complaint failed to allege that any plaintiff resided in Makati at the time of the allegedly libelous broadcasts or that the radio/television stations were first published there.

Practical standards for pleading and proof under Article 360 for broadcasts

The decision requires that an Information alleging broadcast libel must plead with particularity either (1) the location of the radio or television station that transmitted the broadcast (e.g., the station’s principal office or transmission site), or (2) the offended party’s a

    ...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