G.R. No. 97827 - University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 97827)

Factual Background

At the August 1986 conference, Jerome Bailen, a University professor of anthropology, presented a compilation called the “Tasaday Folio” criticizing the authenticity of the Tasaday discovery. Zeus Salazar, a University history professor, traced the Tasaday genealogy to T’boli and Manobo groups and presented a television documentary in which natives alleged inducement by Manuel Elizalde to pose as primitive cave dwellers. In July 1988, Bailen and Salazar reiterated their claims in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, and the statements received wide publicity in Philippine newspapers. The plaintiffs asserted that these acts and utterances injured the Tasaday community and Elizalde and sought damages and declaratory relief.

Complaint and Claims

On October 27, 1988 plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. Q-88-1028 against Salazar and Bailen alleging that defendants’ statements deprived the Tasadays of peace of mind, defiled their dignity, and were defamatory toward Elizalde. The complaint sought moral damages of P32,000 under two causes of action, attorney’s fees of P5,000, and a judicial declaration that the Tasadays constituted a distinct ethnic community entitled to the benefits of Presidential Proclamation No. 995. Plaintiffs requested appointment of a guardian ad litem for the Tasaday plaintiffs and proposed that awarded sums be donated to a proposed foundation.

Intervention and Respondent Defenses

On November 24, 1988, University of the Philippines moved to intervene asserting a duty to protect faculty and claiming institutional academic freedom and privilege for the allegedly protected acts. Salazar and Bailen filed a motion to dismiss on December 5, 1988 asserting failure to state a cause of action, prescription, protection by free speech and academic freedom, lack of justiciable controversy for declaratory relief, and want of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 9, 1989, and later admitted the University’s proposed answer in intervention.

Trial Court Orders, Default, and Preliminary Hearing

The trial court struck the University’s initial motion to dismiss as improper after it had submitted an answer in intervention pursuant to Section 2(c), Rule 12. The court declared defendants in default on March 10, 1989, and denied motions to set aside the default. The University sought a preliminary hearing under Section 5, Rule 16 to test affirmative defenses pleaded in its answer in intervention, specifically lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action. The trial court on May 15, 1989 denied those defenses as grounds for a motion to dismiss, reasoning that the complaint on its face stated a cause of action against the original defendants and that extraneous facts not appearing in the complaint could not sustain a dismissal.

Early Supreme Court Litigation and Referral to the Court of Appeals

After the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss, Salazar and Bailen petitioned the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 87248 but the petition was dismissed by resolution on April 3, 1989 for failure to show grave abuse of discretion. The University separately filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in G.R. No. 88664 contesting the trial court’s May 15, 1989 order; that petition was referred to the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 18074.

Court of Appeals Disposition

On March 12, 1991 the Court of Appeals dismissed the University’s petition and lifted a previously issued temporary restraining order. The appellate court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action required that the lack of cause be apparent on the face of the complaint and that allegations outside the complaint could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals also observed that the complaint’s principal object was recovery for alleged tortious conduct and that ancillary prayers, such as declaratory relief, did not defeat jurisdiction over the damages claim.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the University’s motion to dismiss and by refusing to treat the University’s asserted defenses of institutional academic freedom and privilege as proper grounds for early dismissal. Ancillary issues included whether res judicata barred review and whether the declaratory relief sought should be dismissed as improper in a civil action.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order and the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the hearing of Civil Case No. Q-88-1028 with dispatch and cautioned the lower court in resolving questions touching on matters beyond judicial expertise. The Court denied costs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action tested the sufficiency of allegations appearing in the complaint alone and could not be predicated on extraneous facts and defenses not pleaded in the complaint. The complaint, the Court found, alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Salazar and Bailen for acts and utterances that allegedly besmirched plaintiffs’ reputations and caused injury, including publicity that aggravated the harm. The University’s asserted defenses of institutional academic freedom and privilege were affirmative defenses properly raised in an answer and subject to proof at trial rather than grounds to abort the action at its inception. The Court noted procedural rules constraining an intervenor’s pleadings, including Section 2(c), Rule 12, and recognized that Section 5, Rule 16 treated certain special defenses as the equivalent of a motion to dismiss but nonetheless required that defenses be evaluated on the basis of the complaint’s face. The Court observed that the University erred in attempting

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 97827)

Parties and Procedural Posture

University of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the denial of its motion to dismiss and related orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City.
Manuel Elizalde and Tasaday representatives Balayem, Mahayag, Dul and Lobo were the plaintiffs who instituted Civil Case No. Q-88-1028 for damages and declaratory relief.
Zeus Salazar and Jerome Bailen were the original defendants against whom the complaint for damages was filed.
The Regional Trial Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on January 9, 1989 and later denied intervenor University of the Philippines' motions and special defenses.
Salazar and Bailen filed a petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 87248) which the Court dismissed by minute resolution on April 3, 1989.
University of the Philippines filed a separate petition (docketed G.R. No. 88664 and subsequently referred to the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 18074) challenging the Order of May 15, 1989, which the Court of Appeals resolved against petitioner on March 12, 1991.
The Supreme Court, through the present decision, affirmed the decisions below and directed the trial court to proceed with dispatch.

Key Factual Allegations

At an International Conference on August 15-17, 1986, Jerome Bailen presented the "Tasaday Folio" disputing the authenticity of the Tasaday find.
At the same conference Zeus Salazar traced the Tasaday genealogy to T'boli and Manobo ethnic groups and presented a videotaped documentary alleging inducement by Manuel Elizalde for natives to pose as Tasaday.
In July 1988, Salazar and Bailen reiterated allegations of a hoax at the 12th International Congress in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, and their statements received wide publicity.
On October 27, 1988, Elizalde and Tasaday representatives filed a complaint alleging that the defendants' statements defamed and deprived the plaintiffs of peace of mind, dignity, and rights under Presidential Proclamation No. 995.
Plaintiffs sought moral damages twice in the amount of P32,000 each, attorney's fees of P5,000, appointment of Josine Loinaz Elizalde as guardian ad litem for the Tasaday plaintiffs, and a declaratory judgment recognizing the Tasadays as a distinct ethnic community.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss grounded on institutional academic freedom and free speech.
Whether University of the Philippines, as intervenor, could properly invoke lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action by way of a motion to dismiss after filing an answer in intervention.
Whether res judicata precluded University of the Philippines from relitigating the denial of dismissal after the earlier petition by Salazar and Bailen was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Whether the prayer for declaratory relief to declare the Tasadays a distinct ethnic community was justiciable in the form pleaded.

Contentions of the Parties

University of the Philippines asserted that the acts and utterances of Salazar and Bailen were protected by the mantle of institutional academic freedom and privileged, thereby negating any cause of action under Art. 26, Civil Code.
Salazar and Ba