Facts:: Jalandoni vs. Drilon, GR No. 115239-40

Jalandoni Vs. Drilon, GR No.
115239-40
Facts:
Private respondent published a full page advertisement in five major daily newspapers. These
ads contained allegations naming petitioner who was them a PCSG Commissioner of having
committed and illegal and unauthorized acts. Petitioner filed a complaint for libel.
Issue:
WON the assailed advertisement and the open letter constitute libel.
Ruling:
NO. in libel cases against public officials, for liability to arise, the alleged defamatory statement
must relate to official conduct, even if the defamatory statement is false, unless the public
official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice, that is, with
knowledge that it was false or not. Here petitioner failed to prove actual malice on the part of the
private respondents. The statements embodied in the advertisement and the open letter are
protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. 17 This carries the right to
criticize the action and conduct of a public official.
GMA Network V. Bustos, GR No. 146848

Facts:
Rey Vidal, GMA newscaster, covered the filing of the Mandamus petition filed by the
unsuccessful examinees of Physician Licensure examination. After securing a copy of the
petition, Vidal composed and narrated the news coverage quoting thereof the allegations of
unsuccessful examinees that the gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical and capricious
checking that must have been going for years should now be stopped once and for all.
Simultaneous with the news was a old video footage showing physicians wearing black
armbands.
Issue:
WON the said report was libelous.
Ruling:
NO. The statement in the news report falls within the ambit of privileged communication. For,
although every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, the presumption does not
exist in matters considered privileged. In the case at bar, neither the insertion of the file video
constitute malice in the part of the petitioners. Contrary to the CA’s findings, the identifying
character-generated words "file video" appeared to have been superimposed on screen,
doubtless to disabuse the minds of televiewers of the idea that a particular footage is current. In
the words of the trial court, the phrase "file video" was "indicated on screen purposely to prevent
misrepresentation so as not to confuse the viewing public."1
JAL v Simagan, GR No. 118971

Facts:
Simagan, a passenger of Japan Airlines (JAL) going to the USA was deplaned arrogantly by
JAL personnel at NAIA when they doubted his travel documents. Consequently, SImagan filed a
civil case for damage which was decided in his favor. JAL, appealed and filed aa counterclaim
of damages claiming the private respondent maliciously published the complaint in the
newspaper, thereby causing damage to JAL.
Issue:
WON the publication constitute libel
Ruling:
No. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of the speech and of the press includes fair
commentaries on matters of public interest. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are
privileged. In the case above, JAL deals with the public, its ill treatment of respondent without a
valid reason naturally drew public attention and generated a public issue.The publications
involved matters about which the public has the right to be informed because they relate to a
public issue. This public issue or concern is a legitimate topic of a public comment that may be
validly published. Even though JAL is not a public official, the rule on privileged commentaries
on matters of public interest applies to it. The privilege applies not only to public officials but
extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern, public men, and
candidates for office.
In Re: Published Alleged Threats against Member of the Court…, 385 SCRA 285
Facts:
During the pendency of the petition f Ex-President Estrada challenging the constitutionality if the
Plunder Law, Atty De Vera in a newspaper interview asked the SC to dispel rumors that it would
vote to declare the law unconstitutional. He stated that a decision by the high tribunal rendering
the plunder law a nullity would trigger mass actions and added that people would not just
swallow any SC decision that is basically wrong.
Issue:
WON the statement of De Vera is a protected speech and is fair criticism.
Ruling:
No. Respondent’s utterances pressuring the Court to rule in favor of the constitutionality of the
Plunder Law or risk another series of mass actions by the public cannot be construed as falling
within the ambit of constitutionally-protected speech, because such statements are not fair
criticisms of any decision of the Court, but obviously are threats made against it to force the
Court to decide the issue in a particular manner, or risk earning the ire of the public. Such
statements show disrespect not only for the Court but also for the judicial system as a whole,
tend to promote distrust and undermine public confidence in the judiciary, by creating the
impression that the Court cannot be trusted to resolve cases impartially and violate the right of
the parties to have their case tried fairly by an independent tribunal, uninfluenced by public
clamor and other extraneous influences.
Tulfo v People, 565 SCRA 283

Facts:
Petitioner Erwin Tulfo and other employees of the daily tabloid Remate were charged with the
crime of libel in connection with the publication of the articles in the column Direct Hit. They
allegedly stated that Atty. So of the Intelligence Division of BOC as “corrupt” and same others.
Issue:
WON the statement is a privilege communication.
Ruling:
No. The articles clearly are not the fair and true reports contemplated by the provision. They
provide no details of the acts committed by the subject, Atty. So. They are plain and simple
baseless accusations, backed up by the word of one unnamed source. Good faith is lacking, as
Tulfo failed to substantiate or even attempt to verify his story before publication. Tulfo goes even
further to attack the character of the subject, Atty. So, even calling him a disgrace to his religion
and the legal profession. As none of the elements of the second paragraph of Art. 354 of the
RPC is present in Tulfo's articles, it cannot thus be argued that they are qualified privileged
communications under the RPC. Tulfo failed to satisfy the requirements of being fair and true
report, as he did not do research before making his allegations, and it has been shown that
these allegations were baseless. The articles are not "fair and true reports," but merely wild
accusations.

Facts:: Jalandoni vs. Drilon, GR No. 115239-40

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts:: Jalandoni vs. Drilon, GR No. 115239-40

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts:: Jalandoni vs. Drilon, GR No. 115239-40

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jalandoni Vs. Drilon, GR No.

GMA Network V. Bustos, GR No. 146848

JAL v Simagan, GR No. 118971

Tulfo v People, 565 SCRA 283

You might also like