G.R. No.

143372

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. (PEOPLE’S JOURNAL), ZACARIAS NUGUID, JR.

and CRISTINA LEE, Petitioners,
vs.
FRANCIS THOENEN, Respondent.

Facts:

1. On 30 September 1990, a news item appeared in the People’s Journal about Francis
Thoenen, a Swiss national who allegedly shoots wayward neighbors’ pets that he finds in
his domain.

2. The BF Homes residents through lawyer Atty. Efren Angara complained that the
deportation of Francis Thoenen, of 10 Calcutta BF Homes Phase III, could help "prevent
the recurrence of such incident in the future.

3. Thoenen claimed that the report was false and defamatory, and that the petitioners acted
irresponsibly in failing to verify the truth of the same prior to publication.

4. He filed a civil case for damages against herein petitioners, Philippine Journalists, Inc.,
Zacarias Nuguid, Jr., its publisher, and reporter Cristina Lee.

5. The petitioners admitted publication of the news item, ostensibly out of a "social and
moral duty to inform the public on matters of general interest, promote the public good
and protect the moral public (sic) of the people," and that the story was published in good
faith and without malice.

6. The principal source of the article was a letter by a certain Atty. Efren Angara addressed
to Commissioner Andrea Domingo of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
(CID, now Bureau of Immigration)

Issue:

Whether or not the news report fall under privileged communication and therefore protected by
the constitutional provision on freedom of speech.

Held:

No. The right of free speech is not absolute. Libel is not protected speech. There are certain well-
defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has
never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene,
the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words - those which by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Ruling:

The Decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 January 2000 reversing the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, of 31 August 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the
modification that petitioners are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, moral damages in the sum
of ₱100,000.00, exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00, and legal fees of ₱20,000.00. No costs.

The news item contained falsehoods on two levels. First, the BF Homes residents did not
ask for the deportation of Thoenen, more so because the letter of the Atty. Anagara was a mere
request for verification of Thoenen’s status as a foreign resident. The article is also untrue
because the events she reported never happened. Worse, the main source of information, Atty.
Efren Angara, apparently either does not exist, or is not a lawyer.
In the instant case, even if it is assumed that the letter written by Atty. Angara is
privileged communication, it lost its character when the matter was published in the newspaper
and circulated among the general population, especially since the individual alleged to be
defamed is neither a public official nor a public figure. 
Neither is the news item a fair and true report without any comments or remarks of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings; there is in fact no proceeding to speak of. Nor is the article
related to any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions, for it concerns only
false imputations against Thoenen, a private individual seeking a quiet life.

Direction of the case:

1. On 31 August 1994, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, rendered a
Decision in favor of the petitioners. Complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED
WITHOUT PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO COSTS.
There is no malice on the part of the defendants in publishing the news item done in the
exercise of their profession as journalists reporting to the people on matters of public
interest. The news report was based on an official communication filed with the Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation.
2. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. In its stead, the court find for
the appellant and award him moral damages of ₱200,000.00; exemplary damages of
₱50,000.00, and legal fees to ₱30,000.00; all of which shall be borne jointly and
severally by appellees.
It held that although freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are
among the most zealously guarded in the Constitution, still, in the exercise of these
rights, Article 19 of the Civil Code requires everyone to "act with justice, give everyone
his due, and observe honesty and good faith." The appellate court emphasized that
Thoenen was neither a public official nor a public figure.

It also correctly ruled that the petitioners’ story is not privileged in character, for it is neither
"private communication" nor a fair and true report without any comments or remarks.

3. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration having been denied, this petition for certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was filed on the following grounds:
 a. The Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioners Cristina Lee, Nuguid and
PJI liable under Article 19 of the Civil Code.

b. The Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioners liable for libel even if the
article was based on a letter released by the Bureau of Immigration, hence a
qualified privilege communication.

c. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioners did not ascertain the
truth of the subject news item.

d. The Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages notwithstanding that the same
was excessive unconscionable and devoid of any basis.

Supplementing Facts:

1. Thoenen claimed that the article destroyed the respect and admiration he enjoyed in the
community, and that since it had been published, he and his wife received several queries
and angry calls from friends, neighbors and relatives.

2. For the impairment of his reputation and standing in the community, and his mental
anguish, Thoenen sought ₱200,000.00 in moral damages, ₱100,000.00 in exemplary
damages, and ₱50,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

3. The petitioners claim that Lee, as the reporter assigned to cover news events in the CID,
acquired a copy of the above letter from a trusted source in the CID’s Intelligence
Division. They claimed to "have reasonable grounds to believe in the truth and veracity
of the information derived (from their) sources.

4. It was proven at trial that the news article contained several inaccuracies. The headline,
which categorically stated that the subject of the article engaged in the practice of
shooting pets, was untrue.

5. No complaints had in fact been lodged against him by any of the BF Homeowners nor
had any pending deportation proceedings been initiated against him in the Bureau of
Immigration.

6. Thoenen also submitted a Certification from the Office of the Bar Confidant that there
was no lawyer in its rolls by the name of Efren Angara, earlier cited by petitioner Lee as
the author of the letter on which she based her article. Finally, the trial also showed that
despite the fact that respondent’s address was indicated in the letter, Cristina Lee made
no efforts to contact either him or the purported letter-writer, Atty. Angara.
7. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be met: (a) the allegation
of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c)
identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.

8. In Vasquez v. Court of Appeals,

a. An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission

of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or
put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead

b. To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third

person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory
statement.

c. Malice or ill will must be present. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be

malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making
it is shown, except in the following cases:

 A private communication made by any person to another in the

performance of any legal, moral or security duty; and

 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.

9. The article is not a privileged communication. The demand to protect public opinion for
the welfare of society and the orderly administration of government inevitably lead to the
adoption of the doctrine of privileged communication. "A privileged communication
may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged.