Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alameda
G.R. No. 160604
March 28, 2008
FACTS:
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) published an article entitled,
After Bong, whos next? in its August 1, 2000 issue. The article
narrated the death of Expedito Bong Caldez, who was a photo
correspondent in the Cagayan branch of PDI. Here, the family of
Caldez lamented his death due to the erroneous diagnosis of Dr. Luz
Babaran.
On Sept. 29, 2000, the PDI published another article, DOH
orders probe of fotogs death, where they reported that the regional
Department of Health (DOH) in Tuguegarao City has started
investigating the death of Expedito Caldez following an order from
the DOHs Bureau of Licensing and Regulation.
On July 25, 2001, Dr. Babaran filed a complaint for Damages
against PDI because of the two column articles printed by it. She
alleged that:
She wrote a letter to PDIs editor after learning about
the Aug. 1 article but did not receive a response
The 2nd article was published, again singling her out as
erroneously diagnosing the illness of Caldez
The DOH Fact-Finding Committee concluded that her
diagnosis was not erroneous, but this was not published
PDI acted in bad faith because of the above.
On Sept. 13, 2001, PDI filed their answer with counterclaims
and araised the following defenses:
Complaint states no cause of action
Complaint fails and omits to state factual premises to
support that there was malice on PDIs part in publishing
the questioned news
Babaran failed to allege actual malice
a case for actionable libel with claims for damages has
not been adequately stated in the complaint
complaint fails to establish basis of PDIs liability.
Pre-trial was held and terminated, and PDI filed a Motion for
a Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defense Raised in the
Answer (which is also a ground for a motion to dismiss). In
said motion, it was alleged that at the pre-trial, the court noted that
one of the defenses raised by PDI was that Babaran has not
delineated the participation of each of petitioners in the publication
of the alleged libelous articles. Thereupon, Babarans counsel asked
for a few days to determine whether the complaint should be
amended to cure its defects. However, Babaran had not moved