PJI V Theonen
PJI V Theonen
PJI V Theonen
The freedom of speech and of the press is not absolute. In this case, there is no controversy as to the existence of the three
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the elements. The respondents name and address were clearly indicated in
prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any the article ascribing to him the questionable practice of shooting the
Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, wayward pets of his neighbors. The backlash caused by the publication of
the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words - those which by their very the article was in fact such that stones had been thrown at their house,
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. breaking several flower pots, and daily and nightly calls compelled him to
It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any request a change of their telephone number.[22] These facts are not
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that contested by the petitioners. What the petitioners claim is the absence of
any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the proof of the fourth element - malice.
social interest in order and morality. [19]
BUT Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it
Libel is not protected speech. be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown
In Vasquez v. Court of Appeals,[21] we had occasion to further explain.
Thus: The article is not a privileged communication.
An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or
commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or qualifiedly privileged. Absolutely privileged communications are those
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or example is found in Sec. 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution which exempts
which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any Committee thereof. Upon the other hand, qualifiedly
There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be justifiable motive.
shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as
the object of the defamatory statement. The appellate court correctly ruled that the petitioners story is not
privileged in character, for it is neither private communication nor a fair
Finally, malice or ill will must be present. Art. 354 of the Revised Penal and true report without any comments or remarks.
Code provides:
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be A communication made bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the
true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty,
except in the following cases: is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty,
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the although it contained criminatory matter which without this privilege would
performance of any legal, moral or security duty; and be slanderous and actionable. A pertinent illustration of the application of
qualified privilege is a complaint made in good faith and without malice in
regard to the character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an We must point out that Lees brief news item contained falsehoods on two
officer or a board having some interest or duty in the matter.[25] levels.
1. On its face, her statement that residents of BF Homes had asked the
This defense is unavailing to petitioners. In Daez v. Court of Appeals[26] we Bureau of Immigration to deport a Swiss who allegedly shoots
held that: neighbors pets is patently untrue since the letter of the spurious
Atty. Angara was a mere request for verification of Thoenens status
As a rule, it is the right and duty of a citizen to make a complaint of as a foreign resident.
any misconduct on the part of public officials, which comes to his 2. Lees article, moreover, is also untrue, in that the events she
notice, to those charged with supervision over them. Such a reported never happened.
communication is qualifiedly privileged and the author is not guilty
of libel. The rule on privilege, however, imposes an additional WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 January 2000
requirement. Such complaints should be addressed solely to some reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, of
official having jurisdiction to inquire into the charges, or power to 31 August 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that
redress the grievance or has some duty to perform or interest in petitioners are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, moral damages in the
connection therewith. sum of P100,000.00, exemplary damages ofP30,000.00, and legal fees of
P20,000.00. No costs.
In the instant case, even if we assume that the letter written by the
spurious Atty. Angara is privileged communication, it lost its character as
such when the matter was published in the newspaper and circulated
among the general population. A written letter containing libelous matter
cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and circulated in
public,[27] which was what the petitioners did in this case.
Neither is the news item a fair and true report without any comments or
remarks of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings; there is in
fact no proceeding to speak of. Nor is the article related to any act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions, for it
concerns only false imputations against Thoenen, a private individual
seeking a quiet life.
The petitioners also claim to have made the report out of a social and
moral duty to inform the public on matters of general interest.
As we said, the respondent is a private individual, and not a public official
or public figure.
We are persuaded by the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,[29] that a newspaper or broadcaster
publishing defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a
public official nor a public figure may not claim a constitutional privilege
against liability, for injury inflicted, even if the falsehood arose in a
discussion of public interest.[30]