Mercado vs Court of First Instance

August 25, 1982 | G.R. L-38753

FACTS:
 Petitioner Mercado was charged with libel for imputing to Mrs. Virginia Mercado as a Member of the Public
Service Commission acts constituting enrichment thru corrupt practices.
o The offensive telegram which contained the allegations was addressed to the Secretary of the,
Department of Public Works and Communications purportedly in line with President Marcos' appeal
to the public to give information on undesirable employees in the government service to achieve the
objectives of the New Society.
o “She has properties and spending above what her salary can afford with the husband jobless”
 Mercado then filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the telegram is privileged communication.
o This was denied by the lower court. Another motion to quash was also denied.
 Respondent CFI of Rizal stress the absence of any privilege, as the communication was made with evident
malice and bad faith despite it being made in accordance with the president’s appeal to give information on
undesirable employees.
o That he was motivated by vengeance and ill-will in making the said communication, is shown by, and
can be established by the prosecution thru the testimony of Mrs. Mercado and the following
documentary evidence:
 October 14, 1972: petitioner filed a letter-complaint with the Chairman of the Board of
Transportation, against the private respondent, for alleged grave violations of the Rep. Act No.
2260 and civil service rules
 Fourteen (14) days after the filing of the aforementioned administrative complaint by petitioner
against the private respondent, the said petitioner sent the subject libelous telegram, which was
indorsed for investigation to the Board of Transportation
 November 23, 1972: petitioner filed an amended administrative complaint against the private
respondent with the same Board of Transportation charging the private respondent with
dishonesty, pursuit of private business or corrupt practices, and misconduct or discourtesy
 Mrs. Mercado submitted her answer to the said administrative charges, and after due hearing,
the Board of Transportation rendered a decision finding the herein private respondent as
innocent of the charges, and dismissing the complaint
 Petitioner, as complainant therein, filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Board of Transportation, which was denied for lack of merit
 While the amended admin complaint was pending before the Board, the petitioner, to further
harass and malign the good character and reputation of the private respondent, filed with the
Constabulary Highway Patrol Group (CHPG), a complaint against the private respondent and
her husband Lorenzo M. Mercado accusing them of selling a Ford Willys engine, which was
carnapped. This case was eventually closed for lack of evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the telegram being qualifiedly privileged should be the basis for the special civil
action for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition

HELD: No. Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Certiorari to annul the order denying the motion to
quash as well as the motion for reconsideration does not lie. Nor should the court be prohibited from
hearing the aforesaid criminal action.

DOCTRINE: The Supreme Court, in dismissing the petition, held that qualified privilege communication
may be lost by proof of malice, that the prosecution should be given the opportunity of proving malice
in view of petitioner's conduct towards private respondent which casts doubt on his good faith.

RATIO:
 In US vs Bustos, Justice Malcolm pointed out that qualified privilege such as in this instance, may be “lost
by proof of malice.”
 Privileged communication: A communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party
communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person
 having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contained criminatory matter which without this
privilege would be slanderous and actionable.
o Application of privileged communication: “A complaint made in good faith and without malice in
regard to the character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an officer or a board
having some interest or duty in the matter. Even when the statements are found to be false, if there
is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of
privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. But the statements must be made under an
honest sense of duty; a self-seeking motive is destructive. Personal injury is not necessary. All
persons have an interest in the pure and efficient administration of justice and of public affairs. The
duty under which a party is privileged is sufficient if it is social or moral in its nature and this person
in good faith believes he is acting in pursuance thereof although in fact he is mistaken. The privilege
is not defeated by the mere fact that the communication is made in intemperate terms.”
 Here, what casts doubt on the good faith of the petitioner is a summary of his conduct: the filing of several
complaints, both administrative and criminal aimed to malign her good character and reputation which were
subsequently dismissed or closed for lack of merit and/or insufficiency of evidence.
o The tenacity with which petitioner had pursued a course of conduct on its face would seem to
indicate that a doubt could reasonably be entertained as to the bona fides of petitioner. The
prosecution should be given the opportunity then of proving malice.
 Respondents have in their favor a decision of this Court supporting their stand. In People v. Monton, the
question of whether or not a motion to quash based on a qualified privilege should be upheld was decided
adversely against the claim of those accused of libel.
o This Court made clear that malice can be shown. It "simply puts the burden of doing so on the
prosecution."