Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jimenez Vs Cabangbang

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    1K views2 pages
    The respondent, a member of the House of Representatives, wrote an open letter to the President of the Philippines regarding alleged operational plans of some military officers. The letter was published in several newspapers. The petitioners, military officers mentioned in the letter, claimed the letter was libelous. The court held that the letter was not privileged communication because it was not related to the respondent's legislative duties and was published outside of a Congressional session. The court also held that the letter was not libelous against the petitioners because it suggested they may have been unwitting tools in the plans and did not damage their reputations.

    Original Description:

    Jimenez vs Cabangbang Case Digest consti law

    Original Title

    Jimenez vs Cabangbang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The respondent, a member of the House of Representatives, wrote an open letter to the President of the Philippines regarding alleged operational plans of some military officers. The letter was published in several newspapers. The petitioners, military officers mentioned in the letter, claimed the letter was libelous. The court held that the letter was not privileged communication because it was not related to the respondent's legislative duties and was published outside of a Congressional session. The court also held that the letter was not libelous against the petitioners because it suggested they may have been unwitting tools in the plans and did not damage their reputations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views2 pages

    Jimenez Vs Cabangbang

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    The respondent, a member of the House of Representatives, wrote an open letter to the President of the Philippines regarding alleged operational plans of some military officers. The letter was published in several newspapers. The petitioners, military officers mentioned in the letter, claimed the letter was libelous. The court held that the letter was not privileged communication because it was not related to the respondent's legislative duties and was published outside of a Congressional session. The court also held that the letter was not libelous against the petitioners because it suggested they may have been unwitting tools in the plans and did not damage their reputations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    JIMENEZVS.

    CABANGBANG
    (17SCRA87)

    The speech and utterances must constitute legislative action that is actions that are done in
    relationwiththedutiesofaMemberoftheCongress.

    FACTS:
    Respondent was a member of the House who wrote an open letter to the President of the
    Philippines,andcausedthistobepublishedinseveralnewspapersofgeneralcirculation.Thecontentsof
    theletterweremainlytoinformthepresidentofthesocalledthreeoperationalplansunderseriousstudyof
    someofficersoftheAFPandaidedbysomecivilians.Italsodescribestheseplansasaninsidiousplanora
    massivepoliticalbuildupofthenSecretaryofDefenseVargas.Italsodetailsthevariousmeansthathas
    alreadybeenmoppedouttoensurethesuccessoftheseoperationalplans.Theletteralsosuggestedthatthe
    plannersalreadyhaveintheircontrol severalofficersoftheAFP,includedarethepetitioners.Itwas
    mentionedhoweverintheletterthatthosementionedaboveasalreadyincontroloftheplannersmaybe
    unwillinglybeonlytoolsoftheplanwhichtheymayhaveabsolutelynoknowledge.Anordinarycivil
    actionfordamageswasinstitutedbypetitionersagainstrespondentforthepublicationofanallegedly
    libelousletter.Thetrialcourtdismissedthiscomplaint.

    ISSUES:
    1.)Whetherornottheletterwasprivilegedcommunication?
    2.)Whetherornotthelettercouldbeconsideredlibelous?

    HELD:
    No.Itisnotprivilegedcommunication.AlthoughtheConstitutionprovidesforanymemberof
    Congressnottobequestionedforanyspeechordebatetherein,inthehallsofCongressorelsewhere,this
    publicationdoesntfallintothiscategory.Thesaidexpressionreferstoutterancesmadebylegislatorsin
    theperformanceoftheirfunctions,whileCongressisinsession.Inthecaseaquo,theletterwasmade
    while Congress was presumably not in session. Furthermore, he caused the letter to be published in
    newspapersofgeneralcirculation,thusipsofactohewasntperforminghisofficialdutyeitherasamember
    ofCongressoranyofficerofanycommittee.No.Thefactthatthelettersuggestedthattheplaintiffsmay
    be unwilling tools of the plan without having knowledge thereof already in a way exculpate the
    responsibilityoftheplaintiffsinthesaidplansifevertheyhaveanypartinthesame.Thisisnotderogatory
    tothepetitionerstoentitlethemtodamages,especiallythattheplannersoftheoperationalplanswere
    alreadyclearlysuggested.

    You might also like