Castro v.

People
GR no. 180832, 23, July 2008
Facts:

Reedley International School (RIS) dismissed Albert Tan’s son, Justin Albert for violating the
terms of his disciplinary probation. RIS imposed that Justin is prevented from participating in the
graduation ceremonies. Albert eventually brought a complaint to Dep-Ed. After the thoroughly
investigation, the Dep- Ed found out that RIS code violation point system allowed the summary
imposition of unreasonable sanctions which has no basis in fact and in law. Therefore, the
system violated the due process. Hence, the Dep- Ed nullified RIS’s imposition and allowed Justin
to attend the graduation ceremonies.

After the graduation, Albert met Bernice C. Ching, a fellow parent in RIS. In course of their
conversation, Albert was contemplating a suit against the officers of RIS.

Bernice telephoned Jerome Castro sometime the first week of April and told him about Albert’s
plan on suing the officers in their personal capacities. Before ending the call, Jerome told Bernice:

Okay, you too, take care and be careful talking [Tan], that’s dangerous.

Bernice then called albert and informed him that Jerome said talking to him was dangerous.
Feeling insulted, Albert filed a complaint for grave oral defamation in the Office of the City Prosecutors
of Mandaluyong City against the petitioner on August 21,2013.

Tan testified that petitioner’s statement shocked him as it portrayed him as someone capable of
committing undesirable acts. He added that petitioner probably took offense because of the complaint
he filed against RIS in the Dep-Ed. On the other hand , the petitioner denied the harboring ill- feelings
against Tan despite the latter’s complaint against RIS in the Dep-Ed. Although he admitted having
conversation with Ching on the telephone a few days after RIS 2013 commencement exercises.

Issue:

Is Castro Liable for grave oral defamation?

Held:

No, Castro is not liable for grave oral defamation but he may be liable for damages under Article 26 of
the Civil Code.

Due to criminal procedural rules, Castro cannot be held criminally liable for grave oral defamation.
Because the OSG did not raise errors of jurisdiction, The CA erred in taking cognizance of its petition and
worse, in reviewing the factual findings of the RTC decision so as not to offend the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy.

Petitioner could have been liable for damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code:

Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense,
shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from any friends;

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Petitioner is reminder that, as educator, he is supposed to be a role model for the youth. As
such, he should always act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.