1. Borjal wrote newspaper articles criticizing an unnamed "self-proclaimed hero of the EDSA revolution" and organizer of conferences and seminars. Wenceslao sued Borjal for libel, claiming the articles were about him.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the libel suit could not be maintained because the articles did not sufficiently identify Wenceslao as the subject. To be libelous, it must be clear to a third party who is being defamed.
3. The articles were considered privileged communication under the doctrine of fair comment since they discussed a matter of public interest and were supported by evidence, even if the subject was a public figure. Privileged communication is not action
1. Borjal wrote newspaper articles criticizing an unnamed "self-proclaimed hero of the EDSA revolution" and organizer of conferences and seminars. Wenceslao sued Borjal for libel, claiming the articles were about him.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the libel suit could not be maintained because the articles did not sufficiently identify Wenceslao as the subject. To be libelous, it must be clear to a third party who is being defamed.
3. The articles were considered privileged communication under the doctrine of fair comment since they discussed a matter of public interest and were supported by evidence, even if the subject was a public figure. Privileged communication is not action
1. Borjal wrote newspaper articles criticizing an unnamed "self-proclaimed hero of the EDSA revolution" and organizer of conferences and seminars. Wenceslao sued Borjal for libel, claiming the articles were about him.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the libel suit could not be maintained because the articles did not sufficiently identify Wenceslao as the subject. To be libelous, it must be clear to a third party who is being defamed.
3. The articles were considered privileged communication under the doctrine of fair comment since they discussed a matter of public interest and were supported by evidence, even if the subject was a public figure. Privileged communication is not action
1. Borjal wrote newspaper articles criticizing an unnamed "self-proclaimed hero of the EDSA revolution" and organizer of conferences and seminars. Wenceslao sued Borjal for libel, claiming the articles were about him.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the libel suit could not be maintained because the articles did not sufficiently identify Wenceslao as the subject. To be libelous, it must be clear to a third party who is being defamed.
3. The articles were considered privileged communication under the doctrine of fair comment since they discussed a matter of public interest and were supported by evidence, even if the subject was a public figure. Privileged communication is not action
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Borjal v CA identify private respondent Wenceslao as the he is involved in a public issue.
organizer of the conference. As observed by
Facts: petitioners, there were millions of "heroes" of Note again: The doctrine of fair comment means that the EDSA Revolution and anyone of them while in general every discreditable imputation Note: nagfile siya ug complaint sa NPC for unethical could be "self-proclaimed" or an "organizer of publicly made is deemed false, because every man is conduct plus nag file sad siya ug criminal case for seminars and conferences." presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, libel kaso nadismiss for insufficiency of evidence. and every false imputation is deemed malicious, Hence, the present petition. Significantly, private respondent himself nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is entertained doubt that he was the person directed against a public person in his public A civil action for libel was filed against both Borjal and spoken of in Borjal's columns. Identification is capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. Soliven for writing and publishing several articles that grossly inadequate when even the alleged are allegedly offensive and derogatory to complainant offended party is himself unsure that he was In order that such discreditable imputation to a public Wenceslao, who was the elected executive director the object of the verbal attack official may be actionable, it must either be a false of FNCLT. allegation of fact or a comment based on a false 2. Yes. The concept of privileged supposition. Gist of the articles: unnamed self proclaimed hero of communications is implicit in the freedom of Here, his articles were supported by documentary the EDSA revolution/ conference organizer goes the press and that privileged communications evidence (Granted if really directed against around conducting seminars and charging huge fees must be protective of public opinion. Fair Wenceslao.) for such (Feel niya directed towards him) commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense RTC and CA: ruled in favor of Wenceslao in an action for libel or slander. (2 requisites bona fide and not spill the walls....) Issues: While, generally, malice can be presumed 1. Are the elements for libel satisfied? Is the element from defamatory words, the privileged of identifiability is present? character of a communication destroys the 2. Are the articles qualifiedly privileged presumption of malice. The burden of proving communication? (Those that are not actionable actual malice then lies on plaintiff, private unless made with malice) respondent Wenceslao herein This he failed 3. Will the public official doctrine apply? (Doctrine of to do. Fair Comment) Note: Malice connotes ill will or spite and Held: speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, 1. No. Elements: a. Defamatory Imputation b. and implies an intention to do ulterior and Publication or Publicity c. Identifiability d. Malice unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel. victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that Mere error or inaccuracy alone does not he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended prove actual malice. The press cannot be party recognized himself as the person attacked or held accountable for honest mistakes. defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous 3. Yes. He is considered a public official publication. Regrettably, these requisites have not since the conference was imbued with public been complied with in the case at bar. interest. Even granting for the sake of argument that he is not a public figure, he still The questioned articles written by Borjal do not cannot do away with public scrutiny because
Tunde O. Sosanya v. Bob Anthony, Commissioner Jim Proctor Larry Schroeder Edwin Farrar George Mathai George Kiser Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 61 F.3d 916, 10th Cir. (1995)