Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

126466 January 14, 1999 ARTURO BORJAL a.k.a. ART BORJAL and MA !MO SOL!"EN, petitioners, vs. COURT O# APPEALS and #RANC!SCO $ENCESLAO, respondents. BELLOS!LLO, J.: PERPE !"##$ %"&RIDDEN as the public is about losin' one of the (ost basic )et oft hotl) contested freedo(s of (an, the issue of the ri'ht of free e*pression be stirs and presents itself ti(e and a'ain, in c)clic occurrence, to invei'le, na), challen'e the courts to re+surve) its ever shiftin' terrain, e*plore and furro, its heretofore uncharted (oors and valle)s and finall) redefine the (etes and bounds of its controversial do(ain. his, pro(inentl), is one such case. Perhaps, never in -urisprudential histor) has an) freedo( of (an under'one radical doctrinal (eta(orphoses than his ri'ht to freel) and openl) e*press his vie,s. .lac/stone0s pontifical co((ent that 1,here blasphe(ous, i((oral, treasonable, schis(atical, seditious, or scandalous libels are punished b) En'lish la, ... the libert) of the press, properl) understood, is b) no (eans infrin'ed or violated,1 found /indred e*pression in the land(ar/ opinion of En'land0s Star Cha(ber in the Libelis Famosis case in 2345. 1 hat case established t,o (a-or propositions in the prosecution of defa(ator) re(ar/s6 first, that libel a'ainst a public person is a 'reater offense than one directed a'ainst an ordinar) (an, and second, that it is i((aterial that the libel be true. !ntil republicanis( cau'ht fire in earl) "(erica, the vie, fro( the top on libel ,as no less dis(al. Even the venerable 7ustice %ol(es appeared to ,affle as he s,a)ed fro( the concept of cri(inal libel liabilit) under the clear and present dan'er rule, to the other end of the spectru( in defense of the constitutionall) protected status of unpopular opinion in free societ). Vie,ed in (odern ti(es and the current revolution in infor(ation and co((unication technolo'), libel principles for(ulated at one ti(e or another have ,a*ed and ,aned throu'h the )ears in the constant ebb and flo, of -udicial revie,. "t the ver) least, these principles have lost (uch of their flavor, dro,ned and s,a(ped as the) have been b) the ceaseless cacophon) and din of thou'ht and discourse e(anatin' fro( -ust about ever) source and direction, aided no less b) an increasin'l) po,erful and irrepressible (ass (edia. Public discourse, la(ents 8ni'ht, has been devalued b) its utter co((onalit)9 and ,e a'ree, for its lo'ical effect is to benu(b thou'ht and sensibilit) on ,hat (a) be considered as cri(inal ille'iti(ate encroach(ents on the ri'ht of persons to en-o) a 'ood, honorable

and reputable na(e. his (a) e*plain the i(perceptible de(ise of cri(inal prosecutions for libel and the trend to rel) instead on inde(nit) suits to repair an) da(a'e on one0s reputation. In this petition for revie,, ,e are as/ed to reverse the Court of "ppeals in 1:rancisco ;enceslao v. "rturo .or-al and Ma*i(o Soliven,1 C"+&.R. No. <4<=3, holdin' on >? March 2==3 that petitioners "rturo .or-al and Ma*i(o Soliven are solidaril) liable for da(a'es for ,ritin' and publishin' certain articles clai(ed to be dero'ator) and offensive to private respondent :rancisco ;enceslao. Petitioners "rturo .or-al and Ma*i(o Soliven are a(on' the incorporators of Philippines oda), Inc. @P IA, no, PhilS "R Dail), Inc., o,ner of he Philippine Star, a dail) ne,spaper. "t the ti(e the co(plaint ,as filed, petitioner .or-al ,as its President ,hile Soliven ,as @and still isA Publisher and Chair(an of its Editorial .oard. "(on' the re'ular ,riters of he Philippine Star is .or-al ,ho runs the colu(n Jaywalker. Private respondent :rancisco ;enceslao, on the other hand, is a civil en'ineer, business(an, business consultant and -ournalist b) profession. In 2=BB he served as a technical adviser of Con'ress(an :abian Sison, then Chair(an of the %ouse of Representatives Sub+Co((ittee on Industrial Polic). Durin' the con'ressional hearin's on the transport crisis so(eti(e in Septe(ber 2=BB underta/en b) the %ouse Sub+Co((ittee on Industrial Polic), those ,ho attended a'reed to or'aniCe the :irst National Conference on #and ransportation @:NC# A to be participated in b) the private sector in the transport industr) and 'overn(ent a'encies concerned in order to find ,a)s and (eans to solve the transportation crisis. More i(portantl), the ob-ective of the :NC# ,as to draft an o(nibus bill that ,ould e(bod) a lon'+ter( land transportation polic) for presentation to Con'ress. he conference ,hich, accordin' to private respondent, ,as esti(ated to cost around P2,B2?,444.44 ,ould be funded throu'h solicitations fro( various sponsors such as 'overn(ent a'encies, private or'aniCations, transport fir(s, and individual dele'ates or participants. 2 On >B :ebruar) 2=B=, at the or'aniCational (eetin' of the :NC# , private respondent :rancisco ;enceslao ,as elected E*ecutive Director. "s such, he ,rote nu(erous solicitation letters to the business co((unit) for the support of the conference. .et,een Ma) and 7ul) 2=B= a series of articles ,ritten b) petitioner .or-al ,as published on different dates in his colu(n Jaywalker. he articles dealt ,ith the alle'ed ano(alous activities of an 1or'aniCer of a conference1 ,ithout na(in' or identif)in' private respondent. Neither did it refer to the :NC# as the conference therein (entioned. Duoted hereunder are e*cerpts fro( the articles of petitioner to'ether ,ith the dates the) ,ere published. % 31 May 1989 "nother self+proclai(ed 1hero1 of the EDS" Revolution 'oes around or'aniCin' 1se(inars and conferences1 for a hu'e fee. his is a si(ple plo) coated in -aCC) letterheads and slic/

prose. he 1hero1 has the 'all to solicit fees fro( an)bod) ,ith buc/s to spare. Recentl), in his usual strai'htfor,ard st)le, ransportation Secretar) Rainerio 1Ra)1 Re)es, as/ed that his na(e, be stric/en off fro( the letterheads the 1hero1 has been usin' to i(ple(ent one of his pet 1se(inars.1 Re)es said6 1I ,ould li/e to reiterate () reEuest that )ou delete () na(e.1 Note that Ra) Re)es is an honest (an ,ho ,ould confront an)bod) e)eball to e)eball ,ithout blin/in'. 9 June 1989 "nother Euestionable portion of the so+called conference is its unauthoriCed use of the na(es of President "Euino and Secretar) Ra) Re)es. he conference pro'ra( bein' circulated clai(s that President "Euino and Re)es ,ill be (ain spea/ers in the conference. $et, the ,ord is that Cor) and Re)es have not accepted the invitation to appear in this confab. Ra) Re)es even sa)s that the conference should be un(as/ed as a (one)(a/in' 'i((ic/. 19 June 1989 . . . so(e 5,444 fund solicitation letters ,ere sent b) the or'aniCer to ever) o(, Dic/ and %arr) and to al(ost all 'overn(ent a'encies. "nd the letterheads carried the na(es of Re)es and PeriEuet. "'rarian Refor( Secretar) on leave Philip 7uico received one, but he decided to find out front Re)es hi(self ,hat the pro-ect ,as all about. Ra) Re)es, in effect, advised 7uico to put the fund solicitation letter in the ,aste bas/et. No,, if the 5,444 persons and a'encies approached b) the or'aniCer shelled out 2,444 each, that0s easil) P5 (illion to a pro-ect that see(s so unsophisticated. .ut note that one 'ar(ent co(pan) 'ave P244,444, after ,hich the &ar(ents Re'ulator) .oard headed b) rade and Industr) !ndersecretar) &loria Macapa'al+"rro)o ,as approached b) the or'aniCer to e*pedite the 'ar(ent license application of the P244,444 donor. 21 June 1989 " 1conference or'aniCer1 associated ,ith shad) deals see(s to have a lot of trash tuc/ed inside his closet. he 7a),al/er continues to receive infor(ation about the (an0s dubious deals. %is notoriet), in accordin' to reliable sources, has reached the Pre(ier &uest %ouse ,here his na(e is spo/en li/e dun'. *** *** *** he first infor(ation sa)s that the 1or'aniCer1 tried to (ulct half a (illion pesos fro( a 'ar(ent producer and e*porter ,ho ,as bein' investi'ated for violation of the rules of the &ar(ents, e*tile, E(broider) and "pparel .oard. he 1or'aniCer1 told the 'ar(ent e*porter that the case could be

fi*ed for a su( of P?44,444.44. he or'aniCer 'ot the shoc/ of his life ,hen the e*porter told hi(6 1If I have that a(ount. I ,ill hire the best la,)ers, not )ou.1 he or'aniCer left in a huff, his thic/ face ver) pale. *** *** *** :riends in 'overn(ent and the private sector have pro(ised the 7a),al/er (ore 1dope1 on the 1or'aniCer.1 It see(s that he ,as not onl) indiscreet9 he even failed to cover his trac/s. $ou ,ill be hearin' (ore of the 1or'aniCer0s1 e*ploits fro( this corner soon. 22 June 1989 he sche(in' 1or'aniCer1 ,e have been ,ritin' about see(s to have been spreadin' his ,in's too far. " con'ressional source has infor(ed the 7a),al/er that the sche(er once ,or/ed for a con'ress(an fro( the North as so(e sort of a consultant on econo(ic affairs. he first thin' the 1or'aniCer1 did ,as to initiate hearin's and round+the+table discussions ,ith people fro( the business, e*port and F his favorite F the 'ar(ents sector. *** *** *** he 1or'aniCer0s1 principal 'a(el) ,ent alon', thin/in' that his 1consultant1 had nothin' but the 'ood of these sectors in (ind. It ,as onl) later that he realiCed that the 1consultant1 ,as actin' ,ith a burst of ener') 1in aid of e*tortion.1 he 1consultant1 ,as fired. *** *** *** here see(s to be no end to ,hat a (an could do to pursue his dubious ,a)s. %e has tried to operate under a 'uise of a ,ell+(eanin', refor(ist. %e has intellectual pretensions F and so(eti(es he succeeds in 'ettin' his thou'hts in the inside pa'es of so(e ne,spapers, ,ith the aid of so(e naive ne,spaper people. %e has been turnin' out a lot of funn)+ loo/in' advice on invest(ents, e*port 'ro,th, and the li/e. *** *** *** " cabinet secretar) has one bi' ,ish. %e is hopin' for a broad po,er to ban croo/s and influence+peddlers fro( enterin' the pre(ises of his depart(ent. .ut the Cabinet (an (i'ht not 'et his ,ish. here is one 1or'aniCer1 ,ho, even if ph)sicall) banned, call still concoct ,a)s of doin' his thin'. ;ithout a tin'e of re(orse, the 1or'aniCer1 could fill up his letterheads ,ith, na(es of Cabinet (e(bers, con'ress(en, and reputable people fro( the private sector to shore up his shad) reputation and cover up his notoriet). 3 July 1989 " supposed conference on transportation ,as a bi' failure. he attendance ,as ver) poor and the fe, ,ho participated

in, the affair ,ere (ostl) leaders of -eepne) drivers0 'roups. None of the 'overn(ent officials involved in re'ulatin' public transportation ,as there. he bi' na(es in the industr) also did not participate. ;ith such a poor attendance, one ,onders ,h) the conference or'aniCers ,ent ahead ,ith the affair and tried so hard to convince 5,444 co(panies and individuals to contribute to the affair. *** *** *** he conference ,as doo(ed fro( the start. It ,as bound to fail. he personalities ,ho count in the field of transpiration refused to attend the affair or ,ithdre, their support after findin' out the bac/'round of the or'aniCer of the conference. %o, could a conference on transportation succeed ,ithout the participation of the bi' na(es in the industr) and 'overn(ent polic)+(a/ersG Private respondent reacted to the articles. %e sent a letter to he Philippine Star insistin' that he ,as the 1or'aniCer1 alluded to in petitioner .or-al0s colu(ns. 4 In a subseEuent letter to he Philippine Star, private respondent refuted the (atters contained in petitioner .or-al0s colu(ns and openl) challen'ed hi( in this (anner F o test if .or-al has the 'uts to bac/ up his holier than thou attitude, I a( prepared to relinEuish this position in case it is found that I have (isappropriated even one peso of :NC# (one). On the other hand, if I can prove that .or-al has used his colu(n as a 1ha((er1 to 'et clients for his PR :ir(, "" .or-al "ssociates, he should resi'n fro( the S "R and never a'ain ,rite a colu(n. Is it a dealG & hereafter, private respondent filed a co(plaint ,ith the National Press Club @NPCA a'ainst petitioner .or-al for unethical conduct. %e accused petitioner .or-al of usin' his colu(n as a for( of levera'e to obtain contracts for his public relations fir(, "" .or-al "ssociates. 6 In turn, petitioner .or-al published a re-oinder to the challen'e of private respondent not onl) to protect his na(e and honor but also to refute the clai( that he ,as usin' his colu(n for character assassination. ' "pparentl) not satisfied ,ith his co(plaint ,ith the NPC, private respondent filed a cri(inal case for libel a'ainst petitioners .or-al and Soliven, a(on' others. %o,ever, in a Resolution dated H "u'ust 2==4, the "ssistant Prosecutor handlin' the case dis(issed the co(plaint for insufficienc) of evidence. he dis(issal ,as sustained b) the Depart(ent of 7ustice and later b) the Office of the President. On 52 October 2==4 private respondent instituted a'ainst petitioners a civil action for da(a'es based on libel sub-ect of the instant case. ( In their ans,er, petitioners interposed co(pulsor) counterclai(s for actual, (oral and e*e(plar) da(a'es, plus attorne)0s fees and costs. "fter due consideration, the trial court decided in favor of private respondent ;enceslao and ordered petitioners .or-al and Soliven to inde(nif) private

respondent P2,444,444.44 for actual and co(pensator) da(a'es, in addition to P>44,444.44 for (oral da(a'es, P244,444.44 for e*e(plar) da(a'es, P>44,444.44 for attorne)0s fees, and to pa) the costs of suit. he Court of "ppeals affir(ed the decision of the court a quo but reduced the a(ount of the (onetar) a,ard to P224,444.44 actual da(a'es, P>44,444.44 (oral da(a'es and PH?,444.44 attorne)0s fees plus costs. In a >4+pa'e Decision pro(ul'ated >? March 2==3, the appellate court ruled inter alia that private respondent ,as sufficientl) identifiable, althou'h not na(ed, in the Euestioned articles9 that private respondent ,as in fact defa(ed b) petitioner .or-al b) describin' hi( variousl) as a 1self+ proclai(ed hero,1 1a conference or'aniCer associated ,ith shad) deals ,ho has a lot of trash tuc/ed inside his closet,1 1thic/ face,1 and 1a person ,ith dubious ,a)s91 that petitioner0s clai( of privile'e co((unication ,as unavailin' since the privile'ed character of the articles ,as lost b) their publication in a ne,spaper of 'eneral circulation9 that petitioner could have perfor(ed his officer as a ne,spaper(an ,ithout necessaril) trans'ressin' the ri'hts of ;enceslao b) callin' the attention of the 'overn(ent offices concerned to e*a(ine the authorit) b) ,hich ;enceslao acted, ,arnin' the public a'ainst contributin' to a conference that, accordin' to his perception, lac/ed the univocal indorse(ent of the responsible 'overn(ent officials, or si(pl) infor(in' the public of the letters ;enceslao ,rote and the favors he reEuested or de(anded9 and, that ,hen he i(puted dishonest), falsehood and (isrepresentation, sha(elessness and intellectual pretentions to ;enceslao, petitioner .or-al crossed the thin but clear line that separated fair co((ent fro( actionable defa(ation. Private respondent (anifested his desire to appeal that portion of the appellate court0s decision ,hich reduced the a(ount of da(a'es a,arded hi( b) filin' ,ith this Court a Petition for E*tension of i(e to :ile Petition and a Motion for Suspension of i(e to :ile Petition. 9 %o,ever, in a Resolution dated >H Ma) 2==3, the Second Division denied both (otions6 the first, for bein' pre(ature, and the second, for bein' a ,ron' re(ed). On >4 Nove(ber 2==3 ,hen the :irst Division consolidated and transferred the present case to the Second Division, there ,as no lon'er an) case thereat ,ith ,hich to consolidate this case since &.R. No. 2><5=3 had alread) been disposed of b) the Second Division al(ost si* @3A (onths earlier. On their part, petitioners filed a (otion for reconsideration but the Court of "ppeals denied the (otion in its Resolution of 2> Septe(ber 2==3. %ence the instant petition for revie,. he petitioners contend that the Court of "ppeals erred6 @aA in rulin' that private respondent ;enceslao ,as sufficientl) identified b) petitioner .or-al in the Euestioned articles9 @bA in refusin' to accord serious consideration to the findin's of the Depart(ent of 7ustice and the Office of the President that private respondent ;enceslao ,as not sufficientl) identified in the Euestioned articles, this not,ithstandin' that the de'ree of proof reEuired in a preli(inar) investi'ation is (erel) prima facieevidence ,hich is si'nificantl) less than the preponderance of evidence reEuired in civil cases9 @cA in rulin' that the sub-ect articles do not constitute Eualifiedl) privile'ed co((unication9 @dA in refusin' to appl) the 1public

official doctrine1 laid do,n in Ne, $or/ i(es v. Sullivan9 @eA in rulin' that the Euestioned articles lost their privile'ed character because of their publication in a ne,spaper of 'eneral circulation9 @fA in rulin' that private respondent has a valid cause of action for libel a'ainst petitioners althou'h he failed to prove actual (alice on their part, and that the prosecutors of the Cit) of Manila, the Depart(ent of 7ustice, and eventuall), the Office of the President, had alread) resolved that there ,as no sufficient evidence to prove the e*istence of libel9 and, @'A assu(in' arguendo that .or-al should be held liable, in ad-ud'in' petitioner Soliven solidaril) liable ,ith hi(. hus, petitioners pra) for the reversal of the appellate court0s rulin', the dis(issal of the co(plaint a'ainst the( for lac/ of (erit, and the a,ard of da(a'es on their counterclai(. he petition is i(pressed ,ith (erit. In order to (aintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victi( be identifiable althou'h it is not necessar) that he be na(ed. It is also not sufficient that the offended part) reco'niCed hi(self as the person attac/ed or defa(ed, but it (ust be sho,n that at least a third person could identif) hi( as the ob-ect of the libelous publication. 1) Re'rettabl), these reEuisites have not been co(plied ,ith in the case at bar. In rulin' for private respondent, the Court of "ppeals found that .or-al0s colu(n ,ritin's sufficientl) identified ;enceslao as the 1conference or'aniCer.1 It cited the :irst National Conference on #and ransportation, the letterheads used listin' different telephone nu(bers, the donation of P244,444.44 fro( 7uliano #i( and the reference to the 01or'aniCer of the conference1 F the ver) sa(e appellation e(plo)ed in all the colu(n ite(s F as havin' sufficientl) established the identit) of private respondent ;enceslao for those ,ho /ne, about the :NC# ,ho ,ere present at its inception, and ,ho had pled'ed their assistance to it. ;e hold other,ise. hese conclusions are at variance ,ith the evidence at hand. he Euestioned articles ,ritten b) .or-al do not identif) private respondent ;enceslao as the or'aniCer of the conference. he first of theJaywalker articles ,hich appeared in the 52 Ma) 2=B= issue of he Philippine Star )ielded nothin' to indicate that private respondent ,as the person referred to therein. Surel), as observed b) petitioners, there ,ere (illions of 1heroes1 of the EDS" Revolution and an)one of the( could be 1self+proclai(ed1 or an 1or'aniCer of se(inars and conferences.1 "s a (atter of fact, in his = 7une 2=B= colu(n petitioner .or-al ,rote about the 1so+called :irst National Conference on #and ransportation ,hose principal or'aniCers are not specified1 @e(phasis suppliedA. 11Neither did the :NC# letterheads 12 disclose the identit) of the conference or'aniCer since these contained onl) an enu(eration of na(es ,here private respondent :rancisco ;enceslao ,as described as E*ecutive Director and Spo/es(an and not as a conference or'aniCer. 1% he printout 14 and tentative pro'ra( 1& of the conference ,ere devoid of an) indication of ;enceslao as or'aniCer. he printout ,hich contained an article entitled 1;ho Or'aniCed the NC# G1 did not even (ention private respondent0s na(e, ,hile the tentative pro'ra(

onl) deno(inated private respondent as 1Vice Chair(an and E*ecutive Director,1 and not as or'aniCer. No less than private respondent hi(self ad(itted that the :NC# had several or'aniCers and that he ,as onl) a part of the or'aniCation, thus F I ,ould li/e to clarif) for the record that I ,as onl) a part of the or'aniCation. I ,as invited then because I ,as the head of the technical panel of the %ouse of Representatives Sub+ Co((ittee on Industrial Polic) that too/ care of con'ressional hearin's. 16 Si'nificantl), private respondent hi(self entertained doubt that he ,as the person spo/en of in .or-al0s colu(ns. he for(er even called up colu(nist .or-al to inEuire if he @;enceslaoA ,as the one referred to in the sub-ect articles. 1' %is letter to the editor published in the < 7une 2=B= issue of he Philippine Star even sho,ed private respondent ;enceslao0s uncertaint) F "lthou'h he used a subterfu'e, I ,as al(ost certain that "rt .or-al referred to the :irst National Conference on #and ransportation @7une >=+54A and (e in the second para'raph of his Ma) 52 colu(n . . . 1( Identification is 'rossl) inadeEuate ,hen even the alle'ed offended part) is hi(self unsure that he ,as the ob-ect of the verbal attac/. It is ,ell to note that the revelation of the identit) of the person alluded to ca(e not fro( petitioner .or-al but fro( private respondent hi(self9 ,hen he supplied the infor(ation throu'h his < 7une 2=B= letter to the editor. %ad private respondent not revealed that he ,as the 1or'aniCer1 of the :NC# referred to in the .or-al articles, the public ,ould have re(ained in blissful i'norance of his identit). It is therefore clear that on the ele(ent of identifiabilit) alone the case falls. he above disEuisitions not,ithstandin', and on the assu(ption arguendo that private respondent has been sufficientl) identified as the sub-ect of .or-al0s disputed co((ents, ,e no, proceed to resolve the other issues and pass upon the pertinent findin's of the courts a quo. he third, fourth, fifth and si*th assi'ned errors all revolve around the pri(ar) Euestion of ,hether the disputed articles constitute privile'ed co((unications as to e*e(pt the author fro( liabilit). he trial court ruled that petitioner .or-al cannot hide behind the proposition that his articles are privile'ed in character under the provisions of "rt. 5?< of he Revised Penal Code ,hich state F "rt. 5?<. ReEuire(ent for publicit). F Ever) defa(ator) i(putation is presu(ed to be (alicious, even if it be true, if no 'ood intention and -ustifiable (otive for (a/in' it is sho,n, e*cept in the follo,in' cases6 2A " private co((unication (ade b) an) person to another in the perfor(ance of an) le'al, (oral or social dut)9 and, >A " fair and true report, (ade in 'ood faith, ,ithout an) co((ents or re(ar/s, of an) -udicial or other official proceedin's ,hich are not of confidential nature, or of an)

state(ent, report or speech delivered in said proceedin's, or of an) other act perfor(ed b) public officers in the e*ercise of their functions. Respondent court e*plained that the ,ritin's in Euestion did not fall under an) of the e*ceptions described in the above+Euoted article since these ,ere neither 1private co((unications1 nor 1fair and true report . . . ,ithout an) co((ents or re(ar/s.1 .ut this is incorrect. " privile'ed co((unication (a) be either absolutel) privile'ed or Eualifiedl) privile'ed. "bsolutel) privile'ed co((unications are those ,hich are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. "n e*a(ple is found in Sec. 22, "rt.VI, of the 2=BH Constitution ,hich e*e(pts a (e(ber of Con'ress fro( liabilit) for an) speech or debate in the Con'ress or in an) Co((ittee thereof. !pon the other hand, Eualifiedl) privile'ed co((unications containin' defa(ator) i(putations are not actionable unless found to have been (ade ,ithout 'ood intention -ustifiable (otive. o this 'enre belon' 1private co((unications1 and 1fair and true report ,ithout an) co((ents or re(ar/s.1 Indisputabl), petitioner .or-al0s Euestioned ,ritin's are not ,ithin the e*ceptions of "rt. 5?< of he Revised Penal Code for, as correctl) observed b) the appellate court, the) are neither private co((unications nor fair and true report ,ithout an) co((ents or re(ar/s. %o,ever this does not necessaril) (ean that the) are not privile'ed. o be sure, the enu(eration under "rt. 5?< is not an e*clusive list of Eualifiedl) privile'ed co((unications since fair co((entaries on (atters of public interest are li/e,ise privile'ed. he rule on privile'ed co((unications had its 'enesis not in the nation0s penal code but in the .ill of Ri'hts of the Constitution 'uaranteein' freedo( of speech and of the press. 19 "s earl) as 2=2B, in nited !tates "# $a%ete, 2) this Court ruled that publications ,hich are privile'ed for reasons of public polic) are protected b) the constitutional 'uarant) of freedo( of speech. his constitutional ri'ht cannot be abolished b) the (ere failure of the le'islature to 'ive it e*press reco'nition in the statute punishin' libels. he concept of privile'ed co((unications is i(plicit in the freedo( of the press. "s held in &li'alde "# (utierre' 21and reiterated in !antos "# $ourt of )ppeals 22 F o be (ore specific, no culpabilit) could be i(puted to petitioners for the alle'ed offendin' publication ,ithout doin' violence to the concept of privile'ed co((unications i(plicit in the freedo( of the press. "s ,as so ,ell put b) 7ustice Malcol( in .ustos6 1Public polic), the ,elfare of societ), and the orderl) ad(inistration of 'overn(ent have de(anded protection of public opinion. he inevitable and incontestable result has been the develop(ent and adoption of the doctrine of privile'e.1 he doctrine for(ulated in these t,o @>A cases resonates the rule that privile'ed co((unications (ust, sui generis, be protective of public opinion.

his closel) adheres to the de(ocratic theor) of free speech as essential to collective self+deter(ination and esche,s the strictl) libertarian vie, that it is protective solel) of self+e*pression ,hich, in the ,ords of $ale Sterlin' Professor O,en :iss, 2% (a/es its appeal to the individualistic ethos that so do(inates our popular and political culture. It is therefore clear that the restrictive interpretation vested b) the Court of "ppeals on the penal provision e*e(ptin' fro( liabilit) onl) private co((unications and fair and true report ,ithout co((ents or re(ar/s defeats, rather than pro(otes, the ob-ective of the rule on privile'ed co((unications, sadl) contrivin' as it does, to suppress the health) effloresence of public debate and opinion as shinin' linchpins of trul) de(ocratic societies. o reiterate, fair co((entaries on (atters of public interest are privile'ed and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. he doctrine of fair co((ent (eans that ,hile in 'eneral ever) discreditable i(putation publicl) (ade is dee(ed false, because ever) (an is presu(ed innocent until his 'uilt is -udiciall) proved, and ever) false i(putation is dee(ed (alicious, nevertheless, ,hen the discreditable i(putation is directed a'ainst a public person in his public capacit), it is not necessaril) actionable. In order that such discreditable i(putation to a public official (a) be actionable, it (ust either be a false alle'ation of fact or a co((ent based on a false supposition. If the co((ent is an e*pression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is i((aterial that the opinion happens to be (ista/en, as lon' as it (i'ht reasonabl) be inferred fro( the facts. 21 here is no den)in' that the Euestioned articles dealt ,ith (atters of public interest. In his testi(on), private respondent spelled out the ob-ectives of the conference thus F . . . he principal conference ob-ective is to co(e up ,ith a draft of an O(nibus .ill that ,ill e(bod) a lon' ter( land transportation polic) for presentation to Con'ress in its ne*t re'ular session in 7ul). Since last 7anuar), the National Conference on #and ransportation @NC# A, the conference secretariat, has been enlistin' support fro( all sectors to ensure the success of the pro-ect. 2& Private respondent li/e,ise testified that the :NC# ,as raisin' funds throu'h solicitation fro( the public + D6 No,, in this first letter, )ou have attached a bud'et and it sa)s here that in this se(inar of the :irst National Conference on #and ransportation, )ou ,ill need around One (illion ei'ht hundred fifteen thousand pesos, is that ri'htG "6 hat ,as the bud'et esti(ate, sir. D6 %o, do )ou intend as e*ecutive officer, to raise this fund of )our se(inarG "6 ;ell, fro( sponsors such as 'overn(ent a'encies and private sectors or or'aniCations

as ,ell as individual transport fir(s and fro( individual dele'atesIparticipants. 26 he declared ob-ective of the conference, the co(position of its (e(bers and participants, and the (anner b) ,hich it ,as intended to be funded no doubt lend to its activities as bein' 'enuinel) i(bued ,ith public interest. "n or'aniCation such as the :NC# ai(in' to reinvent and reshape the transportation la,s of the countr) and see/in' to source its funds for the pro-ect fro( the public at lar'e cannot dissociate itself fro( the public character of its (ission. "s such, it cannot but invite close scrutin) b) the (edia obli'ed to infor( the public of the le'iti(ac) of the purpose of the activit) and of the Eualifications and inte'rit) of the personalities behind it. his in effect is the stron' (essa'e in *ew +ork ,imes "# !ulli"an 2' ,hich the appellate court failed to consider or, for that (atter, to heed. It insisted that private respondent ,as not, properl) spea/in', a 1public official1 nor a 1public fi'ure,1 ,hich is ,h) the defa(ator) i(putations a'ainst hi( had nothin' to do ,ith his tas/ of or'aniCin' the :NC# . *ew +ork ,imes "# !ulli"an ,as decided b) the !. S. Supre(e Court in the 2=34s at the hei'ht of the blood) riotin' in the "(erican South over racial se're'ation. he then Cit) Co((issioner #. .. Sullivan of Mont'o(er), "laba(a, sued Ne, $or/ i(es for publishin' a paid political advertise(ent espousin' racial eEualit) and describin' police atrocities co((itted a'ainst students inside a colle'e ca(pus. "s co((issioner havin' char'e over police actions Sullivan felt that he ,as sufficientl) identified in the ad as the perpetrator of the outra'e9 conseEuentl), he sued Ne, $or/ i(es on the basis of ,hat he believed ,ere libelous utterances a'ainst hi(. he !. S. Supre(e Court spea/in' throu'h Mr. 7ustice ;illia( 7. .rennan 7r. ruled a'ainst Sullivan holdin' that honest criticis(s on the conduct of public officials and public fi'ures are insulated fro( libel -ud'(ents. he 'uarantees of freedo( of speech and press prohibit a public official or public fi'ure fro( recoverin' da(a'es for a defa(ator) falsehood relatin' to his official conduct unless he proves that the state(ent ,as (ade ,ith actual (alice, i.e., ,ith /no,led'e that it ,as false or ,ith rec/less disre'ard of ,hether it ,as false or not. he raison d- .tre for the Ne, $or/ i(es doctrine ,as that to reEuire critics of official conduct to 'uarantee the truth of all their factual assertions on pain of libel -ud'(ents ,ould lead to self+censorship, since ,ould be critics ,ould be deterred fro(, voicin' out their criticis(s even if such ,ere believed to be true, or ,ere in fact true, because of doubt ,hether it could be proved or because of fear of the e*pense of havin' to prove it. 2( In the present case, ,e dee( private respondent a public fi'ure ,ithin the purvie, of the Ne, $or/ i(es rulin'. "t an) rate, ,e have also defined 1public fi'ure1 in )yers /roduction /ty#0 Ltd# "# $apulong 29 as F . . . . a person ,ho, b) his acco(plish(ents, fa(e, (ode of livin', or b) adoptin' a profession or callin' ,hich 'ives the public a le'iti(ate interest in his doin's, his affairs and his character, has beco(e a 1public persona'e.1 %e is, in other

,ords, a celebrit). Obviousl) to be included in this cate'or) are those ,ho have achieved so(e de'ree of reputation b) appearin' before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball pla)er, a pu'ilist, or an) other entertainer. he list is, ho,ever, broader than this. It includes public officers, fa(ous inventors and e*plorers, ,ar heroes and even ordinar) soldiers, infant prodi'), and no less a persona'e than the &reat E*alted Ruler of the lod'e. It includes, in short, an)one ,ho has arrived at a position ,here the public attention is focused upon hi( as a person. he :NC# ,as air underta/in' infused ,ith public interest. It ,as pro(oted as a -oint pro-ect of the 'overn(ent and the private sector, and or'aniCed b) top 'overn(ent officials and pro(inent business(en. :or this reason, it attracted (edia (ilea'e and dre, public attention not onl) to the conference itself but to the personalities behind as ,ell. "s its E*ecutive Director and spo/es(an, private respondent conseEuentl) assu(ed the status of a public fi'ure. .ut even assu(in' e12gratia argumenti that private respondent, despite the position he occupied in the :NC# , ,ould not Eualif) as a public fi'ure, it does not necessaril) follo, that he could not validl) be the sub-ect of a public co((ent even if he ,as not a public official or at least a public fi'ure, for he could be, as lon' as he ,as involved in a public issue. If a (atter is a sub-ect of public or 'eneral interest, it cannot suddenl) beca(e less so (erel) because a private individual is involved or because in so(e sense the individual did not voluntaril) choose to beco(e involved. he public0s pri(ar) interest is in the event9 the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect and si'nificance of the conduct, not the participant0s prior anon)(it) or notoriet). %) here is no den)in' that the Euestioned articles dealt ,ith (atters of public interest. " readin' of the i(putations of petitioner .or-al a'ainst respondent ;enceslao sho,s that all these necessaril) bore upon the latter0s official conduct and his (oral and (ental fitness as E*ecutive Director of the :NC# . he nature and functions of his position ,hich included solicitation of funds, disse(ination of infor(ation about the :NC# in order to 'enerate interest in the conference, and the (ana'e(ent and coordination of the various activities of the conference de(anded fro( hi( ut(ost honest), inte'rit) and co(petence. hese are (atters about ,hich the public has the ri'ht to be infor(ed, ta/in' into account the ver) public character of the conference itself. Concededl), petitioner .or-al (a) have 'one overboard in the lan'ua'e e(plo)ed describin' the 1or'aniCer of the conference.1 One is te(pted to ,onder if it ,as b) so(e (ischievous 'a(bit that he ,ould also dare test the li(its of the 1,ild blue )onder1 of free speech in this -urisdiction. .ut no (atter ho, inte(perate or deprecator) the utterances appear to be, the privile'e is not to be defeated nor rendered inutile for, as succinctl) e*pressed b) Mr. 7ustice .rennan in *ew +ork ,imes "# !ulli"an, 1JDKebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and ,ide open, and that it (a)

,ell include vehe(ent, caustic and so(eti(es unpleasantl) sharp attac/s on the 'overn(ent and public officials. %1 he Court of "ppeals concluded that since (alice is al,a)s presu(ed in the publication of defa(ator) (atters in the absence of proof to the contrar), the Euestion of privile'e is i((aterial. ;e re-ect this postulate. ;hile, 'enerall), (alice can be presu(ed fro( defa(ator) ,ords, the privile'ed character of a co((unication destro)s the presu(ption of (alice. %2 he onus of provin' actual (alice then lies on plaintiff, private respondent ;enceslao herein. %e (ust brin' ho(e to the defendant, petitioner .or-al herein, the e*istence of (alice as the true (otive of his conduct. %% Malice connotes ill ,ill or spite and spea/s not in response to dut) but (erel) to in-ure the reputation of the person defa(ed, and i(plies an intention to do ulterior and un-ustifiable har(. %4 Malice is bad faith or bad (otive. %& It is the essence of the cri(e of libel. %6 In the (ilieu obtainin', can it be reasonabl) inferred that in ,ritin' and publishin' the articles in Euestion petitioner .or-al acted ,ith (aliceG Pri(aril), private respondent failed to substantiate b) preponderant evidence that petitioner ,as ani(ated b) a desire to inflict un3ustifiable 4arm on his reputation, or that the articles ,ere ,ritten and published wit4out good moti"es or 3ustifiable ends. On the other hand, ,e find petitioner .or-al to have acted in 'ood faith. Moved b) a sense of civic dut) and prodded b) his responsibilit) as a ne,spaper(an, he proceeded to e*pose and denounce ,hat he perceived to be a public deception. Surel), ,e cannot be'rud'e hi( for that. Ever) citiCen has the ri'ht to en-o) a 'ood na(e and reputation, but ,e do not consider that petitioner .or-al has violated that ri'ht in this case nor abused his press freedo(. :urther(ore, to be considered (alicious, the libelous state(ents (ust be sho,n to have been ,ritten or published ,ith the /no,led'e that the) are false or in rec/less disre'ard of ,hether the) are false or not. %' 1Rec/less disre'ard of ,hat is false or not1 (eans that the defendant entertains serious doubt as to the truth of the publication, %( or that he possesses a hi'h de'ree of a,areness of their probable falsit). %9 he articles sub-ect of the instant case can hardl) be said to have been ,ritten ,ith /no,led'e that these are false or in rec/less disre'ard of ,hat is false or not. his is not to sa) ho,ever that the ver) serious alle'ations of petitioner .or-al assu(ed b) private respondent to be directed a'ainst hi( are true. .ut ,e nevertheless find these at least to have been based on reasonable 'rounds for(ed after the colu(nist conducted several personal intervie,s and after considerin' the varied docu(entar) evidence provided hi( b) his sources. hus, the follo,in' are supported b) docu(entar) evidence6 @aA that private respondent reEuested &loria Macapa'al+"rro)o, then head of the &ar(ents and e*tile E*port .oard @& E.A, to e*pedite the processin' and release of the i(port approval and certificate of availabilit) of a 'ar(ent fir( in e*chan'e for the (onetar) contribution of 7uliano #i(, ,hich necessitated a repl) fro( the office of &loria Macapa'al+"rro)o e*plainin' the procedure of

the & E. in processin' applications and clarif)in' that all applicants ,ere treated eEuall)9 4) @bA that "ntonio PeriEuet ,as desi'nated Chair(an of the E*ecutive Co((ittee of the :NC# not,ithstandin' that he had previousl) declined the offer9 41 and, @cA that despite the fact that then President "Euino and her Secretar) of ransportation Rainerio Re)es declined the invitation to be 'uest spea/ers in the conference, their na(es ,ere still included in the, printout of the :NC# . 42 "dded to these are the ad(issions of private respondent that6 @aA he assisted 7uliano #i( in his application for a Euota allocation ,ith the & E. in e*chan'e for (onetar) contributions to the :NC# 9 4% @bA he included the na(e of then Secretar) of ransportation Rainerio Re)es in the pro(otional (aterials of the conference not,ithstandin' the latter0s refusal to lend his na(e to and participate in the :NC# 9 44 and, @cA he used different letterheads and telephone nu(bers. 4& Even assu(in' that the contents of the articles are false, (ere error, inaccurac) or even falsit) alone does not prove actual (alice. Errors or (isstate(ents are inevitable in an) sche(e of trul) free e*pression and debate. Consistent ,ith 'ood faith and reasonable care, the press should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest (ista/es or i(perfections in the choice of lan'ua'e. here (ust be so(e roo( for (isstate(ent of fact as ,ell as for (is-ud'(ent. Onl) b) 'ivin' the( (uch lee,a) and tolerance can the) coura'eousl) and effectivel) function as critical a'encies in our de(ocrac). 46 In 5ulletin /ublis4ing $orp# "# *oel4' ,e held + " ne,spaper especiall) one national in reach and covera'e, should be free to report on events and develop(ents in ,hich the public has a le'iti(ate interest ,ith (ini(u( fear of bein' hauled to court b) one 'roup or another on cri(inal or civil char'es for libel, so lon' as the ne,spaper respects and /eeps ,ithin the standards of (oralit) and civilit) prevailin' ,ithin the 'eneral co((unit). o avoid the self+censorship that ,ould necessaril) acco(pan) strict liabilit) for erroneous state(ents, rules 'overnin' liabilit) for in-ur) to reputation are reEuired to allo, an adeEuate (ar'in of error b) protectin' so(e inaccuracies. It is for the sa(e reason that the Ne, $or/ i(es doctrine reEuires that liabilit) for defa(ation of a public official or public fi'ure (a) not be i(posed in the absence of proof of 1actual (alice1 on the part of the person (a/in' the libelous state(ent. "t an) rate, it (a) be salutar) for private respondent to ponder upon the advice of Mr. 7ustice Malcol( e*pressed in #!# "# 5ustos, 4( that 1the interest of societ) and the (aintenance of 'ood 'overn(ent de(and a full discussion of public affairs. Co(plete libert) to co((ent on the conduct of public (en is a scalpel in the case of free speech. he sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdo(. Men in public life (a) suffer under a hostile and un-ust accusation9 the ,ound (a) be assua'ed b) the bal( of a clear conscience. " public official (ust not be too thin+s/inned ,ith reference to co((ents upon his official acts.1

he fore'oin' disposition renders the second and seventh assi'ned errors (oot and acade(ic, hence, ,e find no necessit) to pass upon the(. ;e (ust ho,ever ta/e this opportunit) to li/e,ise re(ind (edia practitioners of the hi'h ethical standards attached to and de(anded b) their noble profession. he dan'er of an unbridled irrational e*ercise of the ri'ht of free speech and press, that is, in utter conte(pt of the ri'hts of others and in ,illful disre'ard of the cu(brous responsibilities inherent in it, is the eventual self+destruction of the ri'ht and the re'ression of hu(an societ) into a veritable %obbesian state of nature ,here life is short, nast) and brutish. herefore, to reco'niCe that there can be no absolute 1unrestraint1 in speech is to trul) co(prehend the Euintessence of freedo( in the (ar/etplace of social thou'ht and action, 'enuine freedo( bein' that ,hich is li(ned b) the freedo( of others. If there is freedo( of the press, ou'ht there not also be freedo( fro( the pressG It is in this sense that self+ re'ulation as distin'uished fro( self+censorship beco(es the ideal (ean for, as Mr. 7ustice :ran/furter has ,arned, 1J;Kithout . . . a livel) sense of responsibilit), a free press (a) readil) beco(e a po,erful instru(ent of in-ustice.1 49 #est ,e be (isconstrued, this is not to di(inish nor constrict that space in ,hich e*pression freel) flourishes and operates. :or ,e have al,a)s stron'l) (aintained, as ,e do no,, that freedo( of e*pression is (an0s birthri'ht +constitutionall) protected and 'uaranteed, and that it has beco(e the sin'ular role of the press to act as its 1defensor fidei1 in a de(ocratic societ) such as ours. .ut it is also ,orth /eepin' in (ind that the press is the servant, not the (aster, of the citiCenr), and its freedo( does not carr) ,ith it an restricted huntin' license to pre) on the ordinar) citiCen. &) On petitioners0 counterclai( for da(a'es, ,e find the evidence too (ea'er to sustain an) a,ard. Indeed, private respondent cannot be said to have instituted the present suit in abuse of the le'al processes and ,ith hostilit) to the press9 or that he acted (aliciousl), ,antonl), oppressivel), fraudulentl) and for the sole purpose of harassin' petitioners, thereb) entitlin' the latter to da(a'es. On the contrar), private respondent acted ,ithin his ri'hts to protect his honor fro( ,hat he perceived to be (alicious i(putations a'ainst hi(. Proof and (otive that the institution of the action ,as pro(pted b) a sinister desi'n to ve* and hu(iliate a person (ust be clearl) and preponderantl) established to entitle the victi( to da(a'es. he la, could not have (eant to i(pose a penalt) on the ri'ht to liti'ate, nor should counsel0s fees be a,arded ever) ti(e a part) ,ins a suit. &1 :or, concludin' ,ith the ,isdo( in 6arren "# /ulit'er /ublis4ing $o. &2 * Ever) (an has a ri'ht to discuss (atters of public interest. " cler')(an ,ith his floc/, an ad(iral ,ith his fleet, a 'eneral ,ith his ar(), a -ud'e ,ith his -ur)9 ,e are, all of us, the sub-ect of public discussion. he vie, of our court has been thus stated6 1It is onl) in despotis(s that one (ust spea/sub rosa, or in ,hispers, ,ith bated breath, around the corner,

or in the dar/ on a sub-ect touchin' the co((on ,elfare. It is the bri'htest -e,el in the cro,n of the la, to spea/ and (aintain the 'olden (ean bet,een defa(ation, on one hand, and a health) and robust ri'ht of free public discussion, on the other. ;%ERE:ORE, the petition is &R"N ED. he Decision of the Court of "ppeals of >? March 2==3 and its Resolution of 2> Septe(ber 2==3 den)in' reconsideration are, REVERSED and SE "SIDE, and the co(plaint for da(a'es a'ainst petitioners is DISMISSED. Petitioners0 counterclai( for da(a'es is li/e,ise DISMISSED for lac/ of (erit. No costs.17wp4i1#n.t SO ORDERED. /uno0 Mendo'a0 Martine' and 5uena0 JJ#0 concur# :acts6 " civil action for da(a'es based on libel ,as filed before the court a'ainst .or-al and Soliven for ,ritin' and publishin' articles that are alle'edl) dero'ator) and offensive a'ainst :rancisco ;enceslao, attac/in' a(on' others the solicitation letters he send to support aconference to be launch concernin' resolvin' (atters on transportation crisis that is tainted ,ith ano(alous activities. ;enceslao ho,ever ,as never na(ed in an) of the articles nor ,as the conference he ,as or'aniCin'. he lo,er court ordered petitioners to inde(nif) the private respondent for da(a'es ,hich ,as affir(ed b) the Court of "ppeals. " petition for revie, ,as filed before the SC contendin' that private respondent ,as not sufficientl) identified to be the sub-ect of the published articles.

Issue6 ;hether or not there are sufficient 'rounds to constitute 'uilt of petitioners for libel. %eld6 In order to (aintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victi( be identifiable althou'h it is not necessar) that he be na(ed. It is also not sufficient that the offended part) reco'niCed hi(self as the person attac/ed or defa(ed, but it (ust be sho,n that at least a third person could identif) hi( as the ob-ect of the libelous publication. hese reEuisites have not been co(plied ,ith in the case at bar. he ele(ent of identifiabilit) ,as not (et since it ,as ;enceslaso ,ho revealed he ,as the or'aniCer of said conference and had he not done so the public ,ould not have /no,n.

he concept of privile'ed co((unications is i(plicit in the freedo( of the press and that privile'ed co((unications (ust be protective of public opinion. :air co((entaries on (atters of public interest are privile'ed and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. he doctrine of fair co((ent (eans that ,hile in 'eneral ever) discreditable

i(putation publicl) (ade is dee(ed false, because ever) (an is presu(ed innocent until his 'uilt is -udiciall) proved, and ever) false i(putation is dee(ed (alicious, nevertheless, ,hen the discreditable i(putation is directed a'ainst a public person in his public capacit), it is not necessaril) actionable. In order that such discreditable i(putation to a public official (a) be actionable, it (ust either be a false alle'ation of fact or a co((ent based on a false supposition. If the co((ent is an e*pression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is i((aterial that the opinion happens to be (ista/en, as lon' as it (i'ht reasonabl) be inferred fro( the facts.

he Euestioned article dealt ,ith (atters of public interest as the declared ob-ective of theconference, the co(position of its (e(bers and participants, and the (anner b) ,hich it ,as intended to be funded no doubt lend to its activities as bein' 'enuinel) i(bued ,ithpublic interest. Respondent is also dee(ed to be a public fi'ure and even other,ise is involved in a public issue. he court held that freedo( of e*pression is constitutionall) 'uaranteed and protected ,ith the re(inder a(on' (edia (e(bers to practice hi'hest ethical standards in the e*ercise thereof.