Borjal vs CA.

Borjal vs CA (consti case po yung case na to under freedom of the press also a crim case under defamation) FACTS  Thereafter,  Thereafter, private respondent respondent led a complaint with the National National ress Clu! (NC) against petitioner "or#al for unethical conduct$ %e accused petitioner "or#al of using his column as a form of leverage to o!tain contracts for his pu!lic relations rm, AA "or#al Associates$ & 'n turn, petitioner "or#al pu!lished a re#oinder to the challenge of private respondent not only to protect his name and honor !ut also to refute the claim that he was using his column for character assassination$  Apparently not satised with his complaint with the NC, private respondent led a criminal case for li!el against petitioners "or#al and Soliven, among others$ %owever, in a esolution dated  August *++, the Assistant rosecutor handling the case dismissed the complaint for insu-ciency of evidence$ The dismissal was sustained !y the .epartment of /ustice and later !y the 0-ce of the resident$ 0n 1* 0cto!er *++ private respondent instituted against petitioners a civil action for damages !ased damages  !ased on li!el su!#ect of the instant case$ 2 'n their answer, petitioners interposed compulsory counterclaims for actual, moral and e3emplary damages, plus attorney4s fees and costs$ After due consideration, the trial court decided court decided in favor of private respondent 5enceslao 5enceslao and ordered petitioners "or#al and Soliven to indemnify private respondent *,,$ for actual and compensatory damages, in addition to 6,$ for moral damages, *,$ for e3emplary damages, 6,$ for attorney4s fees, and to pay the costs of suit$  The Court of Appeals a-rmed Appeals  a-rmed the decision of the court a quo !ut reduced the amount of the monetary award$ 'n a 67page .ecision promulgated 68 9arch *++&, the appellate court ruled inter alia that private respondent was su-ciently identia!le, although not named,, in the :uestioned articles; that private respondent was in fact named defamed !y petitioner "or#al !y descri!ing him variously as a ed inside his closet,< face,< and ed the univocal indorsement of the responsi!le government government o-cials, or

simply informing the pu!lic of the letters 5enceslao wrote and the favors he re:uested or demanded; and, that w hen he imputed dishonesty, falsehood and misrepresentation, shamelessness and intellectual pretentions to 5enceslao, 5enceslao, petitioner "or#al crossed the thin !ut clear line that separated fair comment from actiona!le defamation$ 0n their part, petitioners led a motion for reconsideration !ut the Court of Appeals denied the motion in its esolution of *6 Septem!er *++&$ %ence the instant petition for review$ The petitioners contend that the Court of (short facts)? A civil action for damages !ased on li!el was led !efore the court against "or#al and Soliven for writing and pu!lishing articles that are allegedly derogatory and oDensive against Francisco 5enceslao, attac>ing among others the solicitation letters he send to support a conference to !e launch concerning resolving matters on transportation crisis that is tainted w ith anomalous activities$ 5enceslao however however was never named in any of the articles nor was the conference he was organi=ing$ The lower court ordered petitioners to indemnify the private respondent for damages which was a-rmed !y the Court of Appeals$ A petition for review was led !efore the SC contending that private respondent was not su-ciently identied to !e the su!#ect of the pu!lished articles$ Appeals erred? (a) in ruling that private respondent respondent 5enceslao was su-ciently identied !y petitioner "or#al in the :uestioned articles; (!) in refusing to accord serious consideration to the ndings of the .epartment of  /ustice and the 0-ce of the resident resident that private respondent 5enceslao 5enceslao was not su-ciently identied in the :uestioned articles, this notwithstanding that the degree of proof re:uired in a preliminary investigation is merely  prima facie evidence which is signicantly less than the preponderance of evidence re:uired re:uired in civil cases; (c) in r uling that the su!#ect articles do not constitute :ualiedly privileged communication; (d) in refusing to apply the @or> Times v$ Sullivan; (e) in ruling that the :uestioned articles lost their privileged character !ecause of their pu!lication in a newspaper of general circulation; (f) in ruling that private respondent has a valid cause of action for li!el against petitioners although he failed to prove actual malice on their part, and that the prosecutors of the City of 9anila, the .epartment of /ustice, and eventually, the 0-ce of the resident, had already resolved that there was no su-cient evidence to prove the e3istence of li!el; and, (g) assuming arguendo that "or#al should !e held lia!le, in ad#udging petitioner Soliven solidarily lia!le with him$ Thus, petitioners pray for the reversal of the appellate court4s ruling, the dismissal of the complaint against them for lac> of merit, and the award of damages on their counterclaim$ 'SSB 50N there is su-cient ground to conclude that !or#al and soliven are guilty of li!el and could !e lia!le for damages

%BE. No$ The complaint for damages against petitioners is dismissed$ In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also not sucient that the oended party recognied himself as the person attac!ed or defamed, but it must be sho"n that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication. #$ %egrettably, these re&uisites have not been complied "ith in the case at bar. 5e hold otherwise$ These conclusions are at variance with the evidence at hand$ The :uestioned articles written !y "or#al do not identify private respondent 5enceslao as the organi=er of the conference$ The rst of the  Jaywalker  articles which appeared in the 1* 9ay *+2+ issue of The hilippine Star yielded nothing to indicate that private respondent was the person referred to therein$ Surely, as o!served !y petitioners, there were millions of esman and not as a conference organi=er$ *1 The printout * and tentative program *8 of the conference were devoid of any indication of 5enceslao as organi=er$ The printout which contained an article entitled <5ho 0rgani=ed the NCET< did not even mention private respondent4s name, while the tentative program only denominated private respondent as $ 't is well to note that the revelation of the identity of the person alluded to came not from petitioner "or#al !ut from private respondent himself; when he supplied the information through his  /une *+2+ letter to the editor$ %ad private respondent not revealed that he was the
Art$ 18$ e:uirement for pu!licity$ H Bvery defamatory imputation is presumed to !e malicious, even if it !e true, if no good intention and  #ustia!le motive for ma>ing it is shown, e3cept in the following cases? *) A private communication made !y any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and, 6) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remar>s, of any #udicial or other o-cial proceedings which are not of condential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed !y pu!lic o-cers in the e3ercise of their functions$ espondent court e3plained that the writings in :uestion did not fall under any of the e3ceptions descri!ed in the a!ove7:uoted article since these were neither s$< "ut this is incorrect$ A (%I)I*++- C//01ICA2I1 may !e either a!solutely privileged or :ualiedly privileged$ A!solutely privileged communications are those which are not actiona!le even if the author has acted in !ad faith$ An e3ample is found in Sec$ **, Art$G ', of the *+2 Constitution which e3empts a mem!er of Congress from lia!ility for any speech or de!ate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof$ pon the other hand, :ualiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not actiona!le unless found to have !een made without good intention #ustia!le motive$ To this genre !elong s$< 'ndisputa!ly, petitioner "or#al4s :uestioned writings are not within the e3ceptions of Art$ 18 of The evised enal Code for, as correctly o!served !y the appellate court, they are neither private communications nor fair and true report without any comments or remar>s$ %owever this does not necessarily mean that they are not privileged$ To !e sure, the enumeration under Art$ 18 is not an e3clusive list of :ualiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of pu!lic interest are li>ewise privileged$ The rule on privileged communications had its genesis not in the nation4s penal code !ut in the "ill of ights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press$ *+ As early as *+*2, in United States v. Cañete, 6 this Court ruled that pu!lications which are privileged for reasons of pu!lic policy are protected !y the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech$ This constitutional right cannot !e a!olished The doctrine of fair comment  means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the

!y the mere failure of the legislature to give it e3press recognition in the statute punishing li!els$