Borjal v. CA
GR No. 126466
January 14, 1999
Facts:
Arturo Borjal was the president of PhilSTAR Daily, Inc., and Maximo Soliven was the publisher and chairman of its editorial board. Borjal was among the regular writers of The Philippien Star who runs the column Jaywalker. The case stems from the articles written in Jaywalker, which called a certain organizer of a conference a self-proclaimed hero.
Around that time, the First National Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT) was organized. Its objective was to draft an omnibus bill that would embody a long-term land transportation policy for presentation to Congress. The conference was estimated to cost around Php1,815,000, which would be funded through solicitations from various sponsors. Private respondent Francisco Wenceslao was elected as Executive Director of the FNCLT. As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business committee to support the conference.
The Jaywalkercontained articles allegedly referring to these solicitation letters and other defamatory statements. However, none of these articles named the organizer nor the conference referred to. Wenceslao, thinking he was the one talked about in the article, filed a case of libel against Borjal, Soliven, and others. The trial court as well as the appellate court found the accused guilty of libel.
Issue:
Were the courts a quo correct in convicting the accused of libel?
Ruling:
No. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication. In the case at bar, these requisites were not complied with.
Even Wenceslao admitted that he had doubts whether he was really the organizer referred to in the articles. In fact, he admitted that there were several organizers and that he spoke to Borjal to inquire if he was the one talked about in the articles. Identification is grossly inadequate when even the victim is unsure that he was the object of the attack.
The other errors revolve around the issue of whether the articles constitute privileged communications. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Article 354 of the RPC provides the cases of privileged communication, to wit:
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:
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.
The Supreme Court agrees that the articles are not within the exceptions of Article 354, but this does not necessarily mean that they are not privileged. The enumeration under Article 354 is not exclusive. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged. The conference is one imbued with public interest, and Wenceslao is a public figure. The rule is that discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, but it must be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. Honest criticisms on the conduct of public officials and public figures are insulated from libel judgments.
It's a Ping Thing 