TULFO VS PEOPLE

This is the case that is the total opposite of Borjal v. CA.

In Tulfo, there was this article written by Tulfo. Those who published this article in this Remate, Atty. Carlos Ding So of Bureau of Customs. There
were many allegations here that he was a corrupt individual. During trial, so they were charged na for libel… Tulfo testified that he did not do any
research on this lawyer. Because, according to him, he was not identified in the article.

Based on that argument noh, walay na identify na person, he could not therefore make any research on who this particular person is. He had to
rely on his source. And he had several sources in the Bureau of Customs in this case. So wala siya nag conduct ug extensive research and still he
published his article. They were all held guilty for libel.

The case reached the SC. Tulfo argues for his acquittal for several reasons. One, applying daw Borjal v. CA.

Does Borjal apply here?

The doctrine of privileged communication?

First, the court noted the factual discourse of these 2 cases. Dili pariahs ang facts. On the second more important discussion, is the inapplicability
of privileged communication doctrine. Before we go there, the Court emphasized the rule on the freedom of the press and its responsibility. Just
because you a journalist, you have this right… right to free speech, freedom of the press. You also have a correlative responsibility. In other words,
the right is not asolute. Journalists have code of ethics they have to abide by. In the present case, it cannot be said that Tulfo followed the
Journalists Code of Ethics and exercised his journalistic freedom responsibly. Why? he did not conduct a more in-depth research of his allegations
before he published them, and relied only on his source at the Bureau of Customs. His allegations did not have actual factual basis bordering on
being false. In fact. the trial court found Tulfos accusations against Atty. So to be false.

What about Borjal?

The recognition of this doctrine of fair commentary. That is not absolute defence that can be used in order to evade liability for libel. There are
requirements for the existence of fair commentary on matters of public interest. When the discreditable imputation is directed against a public
person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. You cannot use this as a sanctuary for prosecutions for libel.

This is used by journalists, however, it is not an absolute defense. Because you can be held liable if the comment is a false allegation or based on
a false supposation. Mao ni soya ang other she of the coin.

Although wider latitude is given to defamatory utterances against public officials in connection with or relevant to their performance of official
duties, or against public officials in relation to matters of public interest involving them, such defamatory utterances do not automatically fall
within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech.

What about the other form of privileged communication? In Article 354. Diba there are 2?

Applying the 2, the court said that they are both not present in this case. First of all, wala ang first privilege here.

His articles cannot even be considered as qualified privileged communication under the second paragraph of Art. 354 of the RPC which exempts
from the presumption of malice a fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other
official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Here walay any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings. This was simply an article based on random source. That privilege cannot be
invoked.

So considering na dili siya mahulog under any of the exceptions. Malice therefore is presumed. What happens if malice is presumed? You as the
defence must proved that malice does not exist. They were not able to do that in this case.

C. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Another balancing of interests between two rights. Right to freedom of expression and right to privacy. Unsa ang magprevail? You claim that
you have the right to express but do you have the right to violate the privacy of another? So we discuss that clash. We have the case of