“The newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy.”
This Jan. 31, 1955 declaration by the Supreme Court (SC) was reiterated in reversing both decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) which found the then editors and a reporter of Philippine Daily Inquirer liable for P1.3 million in damages and attorney’s fees on a libel complaint filed by Juan Ponce Enrile -- a former justice secretary, defense minister, and Senate president.
Spared from the payment of damages were the late Inquirer editor-in-chief Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, associate editor Abelardo Ulanday, news editor Artemio T. Engracia Jr., and reporter Donna Cueto who challenged the 2016 CA decision before the SC.
The ruling was contained in a decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and was made public last Feb. 8.
Among other decisions cited in the Inquirer case, the SC also noted its July 5, 2017 ruling on the petition filed by Manila Bulletin Publishing Corp. on a libel complaint lodge against it and the late Ruther D. Batuigas.
In the Manila Bulletin case, Batuigas wrote in his column the contents of the letter of employees of a government agency on the “mismanagement,” “nepotism,” “gross inefficiency,” “improper decorum” of an official (a regional director of the Department of Trade and Industry). The letter was reduced to a complaint filed by the employees before the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman.
The DTI official filed a libel case. Both the regional trial court (RTC) and the CA ordered Manila Bulletin and Batuigas to pay P1.7 million in damages and attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the SC reversed the CA and ruled in favor of Manila Bulletin and Batuigas. The SC said:
“The Court cannot sustain the findings of the RTC and the CA that this article was libelous. Viewed in its entirety, the article withholds the finding that it impeaches the virtue, credit, and reputation of (DTI official).
“The article was but a fair and true report by Batuigas based on the documents received by him and thus exempts him from criminal liability.... The article cannot be considered as defamatory because Batuigas had not ascribed to (DTI official) the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, or any act or omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit the latter. The article was merely a factual report which, to stress, based on the letter of the Waray employees reiterating their earlier complaints against (DTI official) and other co-workers at the DTI Region VIII.”
In the case of Inquirer, its editors and a reporter were sued by Enrile on the basis of the newspapers article published on Dec. 4, 2001 entitled “PCGG: no to coconut levy agreement.” PCGG is Presidential Commission on Good Government.
Enrile claimed that the news article imputed upon him defamatory acts like “having benefited from the coco levy fund, accumulating ill-gotten wealth, and being a Marcos crony.”
In their answer, the Inquirer editors and reporter said that “if the questioned paragraphs in the news article are to be read in its entirety, it will disclose that it did not impute any crime, anomaly or wrongdoing against Enrile.”
They insisted that “the news article only narrates or reports what the PCGG, through its Commissioner, has stated to be the reason for objecting to, or finding as unacceptable, the reported compromise agreement on the coconut levy funds.”
They also said that the mention of Enrile’s name along with the other persons, was merely incidental to the PCGG's explanation of its position against the compromise agreement.
They stressed that the news article “is a true and fair report on a matter of public interest and concern, and hence, privileged in nature.”
Granting the petition and reversing the CA decision, the SC said:
“A closer look at the article involved in this case reveals that it was not Cueto, the author of the article, who was asserting that Enrile was a ‘plunderer’ or a ‘Marcos crony.’
“In both of the paragraphs complained of, the author was merely repeating a supposed statement from PCGG Chairperson Haydee Yorac. It is true that Yorac subsequently disclaimed ownership of any of such statements, but the foregoing fact did not thereby make the defamatory imputations automatically from Inquirer or Cueto.
“Courts, in deciding libel cases, should always bear in mind that ‘hether or not it is libelous depends upon the scope, spirit and motive of the publication taken in its entirety.’
“Under the general rule stated in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. This is malice in law.
“The presumption of malice, however, does not exist in the following instances: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
“Now, is the article in question a ‘fair report on matters of public interest’ so as to be considered as a qualifiedly privileged communication?
“The subject matter of the article is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. As the RTC itself correctly observed, ‘these are matters about which the public has the right to be informed, taking into account the public character of the funds involved.’
“If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved.
“The public's primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, not on the participant's prior anonymity or notoriety.
“From the foregoing, it could be indisputably inferred, therefore, that the presumption of existence of malice does not arise for the article, as the same is considered a ‘fair report on matters of public interest’ -- and thus a qualifiedly privileged communication.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated August 22, 2016, and Resolution dated January 18,2017 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102710 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.”
Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now retired), Rodil V. Zalameda and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurred in the decision.