G.R. No.

L-46079

April 17, 1989

ESTEBAN C. MANUEL vs. HON. ERNANI CRUZ PA O, ANTONIO A. BARANDA, EDSEL LABAYEN and ROLANDO GATMAITAN CRUZ, J.: FACTS: Pending a seizure proceedings, Esteban C. Manuel, as counsel for owners o f the seized articles in a raid conducted by agents of the now defunct Anti-Smug gling Action Center (ASAC), sent a letter to the Chairman of the ASAC in which h e complained about the conduct of the raid and demanded that the persons respons ible therefore be investigated. Manuel said that the agents subjected Ng Woo Hay to indignities and took her necklace and bracelet and her son's wristwatch plus HK$ 70. The Chairman of the ASAC ordered the investigation as demanded, but the agents charged were all exonerated, so Manuel filed a complaint for robbery aga inst the same agents, which was later withdrawn. The owners of the seized articl es, through Manuel, then instituted a civil complaint for damages in the CFI of Manila. Later, the Bulletin Today published a news item based on Manuel's letter to ASAC , which became the basis of an action for libel brought against Manuel and his c lients. Manuel moved to quash the case on the ground that it was not actionable because it was a privilege communication. This motion was denied. ISSUE: Was there libel which will warrant recovery for damages? HELD: From the viewpoint of procedural and substantive law, the charge is defect ive. Neither the letter nor the news account was libelous. Under Article 354 of the RPC, there are two exceptions to the general principle that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intentio n and justifiable motive for making it is shown. These exceptions are: 1) a priv ate communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2) fair and true report, made in good faith, without comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech deli vered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in t he exercise of their functions. The letter constitutes privileged communication. It was sent by Manuel mainly in his capacity as a lawyer in the discharge of hi s legal duty to protect his clients. While the main purpose was to vindicate his client's interest, he could also invoke his civic duty as a private individual to expose anomalies in the public service. The complaint was addressed to the of ficial who had authority over them and could impose proper disciplinary sanction s. As an index of good faith,the letter was sent privately, directly to the addr essee without any fanfare nor publicity. As for the news report, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner, an ordi nary citizen without known ties to the newspaper, could have by himself caused t he publication. It does not appear either that the report was paid for like an a dvertisement. This looks instead to be the result of the resourcefulness of the newspaper in discovering matters of public interest for dutiful disclosure to it s readers. It should be presumed that the report was included in the issue as pa rt of the newspaper's coverage of important current events as selected by its ed itorial staff. At any rate, the news item is a true and fair report of a judicia l proceeding, made in good faith and without comments or remarks, which is likew ise privileged. It is true that the matters mentioned in l rule are not absolutely privileged and at is presumed is not malice but in fact on to overcome that presumption by proof Article 354 as exceptions to the genera are still actionable. However, since wh lack of malice, it is for the prosecuti that the accused was actually motivated

by malice. Absent such proof, the charge must fail as in this case. The two exc eptions provided for under Article 354 are based on the wider guarantee of freed om of expression as an institution of all republican societies. This in turn is predicated on the proposition that the ordinary citizen has a right and a duty t o involve himself in matters that affect the public welfare and, for this purpos e, to inform himself of such matters.