NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, defendant-appellee.

1966 Aug 03 En Banc G.R. No. 15905

FACTS:

Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and

Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang
caused the publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said letter
alleged that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study
by some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists.
That such strategists have had collusions with communists and that the Secretary
of Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup d’état to place him as the president.
The “planners” allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise
and that Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to
meet such an end. The letter was said to have been published in newspapers of
general circulation. Jimenez then filed a case against Cabangbang to collect a sum
of damages against Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbang’s statement is libelous.
Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he said that as a
member of the lower house, he is immune from suit and that he is covered by the
privileged communication rule and that the said letter is not even libelous.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege communication

endowed to members of Congress.

HELD:

No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides “The Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony,
and breach of the peace. Be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any
speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.” The
publication of the said letter is not covered by said expression which refers to
utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions,
such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress,
while the same is in session as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the
same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in
Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of
their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly
authorized to perform its functions as such at the time of the performance of the
acts in question. Congress was not in session when the letter was published and at
the same time he, himself, caused the publication of the said letter. It is obvious
that, in thus causing the communication to be so published, he was not performing
his official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of any Committee
thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by the lower court the said
communication is not absolutely privileged.