Borjal

8/13/2019 Borjal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/borjal 1/3

January 31, 1955

NORBERTO QUISUMBING, petitioner-appellant, vs. EUGENIO LOPEZ, ETAL., respondents-appellees

The respondents Eugenio Lopez, Ernesto del Rosario and Roberto Villanuevaare the publisher, editor-in-chief, and general manager respectively of The

Manila Chronicle, a daily newspaper published and circulated in English in theCity of Manila. On July 15, 1949, the petitioner, Norberto Quisumbing, filed acomplaint against said respondents in the Court of First Instance of Manila for therecovery of damages in the sum of P50,000 as a result of the following allegedlibelous publication in The Manila Chronicle of November 7, 1947.

“NBI MEN RAID OFFICES OF 3 CITY USURERS"

After answer and trial the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment

dismissing the complaint from which the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter Court, in its decision promulgated on January 19, 1953,affirmed the judgment of the court of origin; and the case is now before us onpetition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner.

The Court of Appeals found "that the context of the article in question, is a fair,impartial and true report of official or public proceeding authorized by law.The news item was the result of a press release in connection with an officialinvestigation of the Anti Usury Division, N.B.I., and was a substantial, if not afaithful reproduction of the said press release which was, in turn, an accuratereport of the official proceedings taken by the Anti-Usury Division. The article

merely reported a raid on the 'business offices of three alleged money lenders';and related the steps actually taken or to be taken by the proper officials relativeto the investigation. It did not go beyond the actual report of official actuations.

RULING OF THE CASE: HELD

1) NO. The elements of libel are NOT present.

Headlines which are voluntarily defamatory statements of the publisher are notprivileged even though they head a privileged report of a judicial or other publicproceedings. It is not necessary to reiterate the rule that the headline of an articlemight be libelous while the body of the article is privileged. The whole libel might

be included in the headlines.

A publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sensein which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. So,the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construedtogether, and its meaning and signification thus determined.

The headline of an article or paragraph, being so conspicuous as to attract the

8/13/2019 Borjal


attention of persons who look casually over a paper without carefully reading allits contents, may in itself inflict very serious injury upon a person, both because itmay be the only part of the article which is read, and because it may cast agraver imputation than all the other words following it. There is no doubt that inpublications concerning private persons, as well as in all other publications which

are claimed to be libelous, the headlines directing the attention to thepublication may be considered as a part of it and may even justify a courtin regarding the publication as libelous when the body of the article is notnecessarily so.

If so, the petitioner's positions would be untenable, since by reading merely theheadline in question nobody would even suspect that the petitioner was referredto; and "libel cannot be committed except against somebody and thatsomebody must be properly identified". It may be insisted that the identity ofthe petitioner is revealed in the body of the news item, but we should rememberthat nowhere in the context is the petitioner portrayed as one charged with orconvicted of the crime of usury.

Third Element: The Person libeled must be identified. (Identity ofvictim)

This means the complainant or plaintiff must prove he is the personsubject of the libelous matter, that it his reputation which was targeted.

This element is established by the testimony of witnesses if thecomplainant was not directly mentioned by name. They must be the publicor third persons who can identify the complainant as the person subject ofthe libel. If third persons cannot say it is the plaintiff or complainant who is

the subject, then it cannot be said that plaintiff’s name has been tarnished.

2) The Court of Appeals found as a fact that "there is no evidence in the

record to prove that the publication of the news item under considerationwas prompted by personal ill will or spite, or that there was intention to doharm," and that on the other hand there was "an honest and high sense ofduty to serve the best interests of the public, without self-seeking motiveand with malice towards none."

Matters Considered Privileged By Jurisprudence

Fair Comments on Matters of Public Interest

(a) In Borjal vs. Ct. of Appeals, (301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999) it was held that theenumeration in Article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privilegedcommunications because “fair comments on matters of public interest areprivileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander”

(b). They refer to events, developments, or matters in which the public as a

8/13/2019 Borjal


whole has a legitimate interest.

Truth And Good Motives or Justifiable Ends.

A. It is not enough that what was publicized about another is true. The accusedmust also prove good motives or intentions and justifiable ends, in order todisprove malice.

B. This defense is available only if: (a) What is imputed to another is a crimeregardless if the victim is a private or public person or (ii) if the victim is a publicofficer regardless of whether a crime is imputed, so long as it relates to thedischarge of their official duties

Documents

Borjal