PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATION IN
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
KINDS OF PRIVILEGED
MATTERS
There is a legal presumption that every defamatory
imputation, even if true, is malicious.
—Art. 354, RPC

This presumption, called malice in law, is

destroyed if the communication is privileged.
 The doctrine in privileged communications in
defamation cases developed because “public policy, the
welfare of society, and the orderly administration of
justice” have demanded protection for public opinion.

 It rests upon “public policy, which looks to the free and

unfettered administration of justice, though as an
incidental result, it may in some instances afford an
immunity to the evil disposed and malignant slanderer.”
 ABSOLUTEAND QUALIFIED OR
CONDITIONAL

 Absolutely Privileged Matter—the most solidly

established is a speech or statement delivered by
any Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives.

 Qualifiedly privileged matters, the Revised Penal

Code admits only two kinds:
a. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral or social
duty;
b. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks of (i) any judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are not confidential nature or of
any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings
or (ii) of any other act performed by public officials in the
exercise of their functions (Art. 354)

 The rule on qualified privileged is that “A

communication made bona fide (good faith) upon any
subject matter in which the party communication 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
 The distinction between absolutely and qualifiedly
privileged communications is significant because
of the legal consequences which flow from such
classification.

 In absolutely privileged communications, freedom

from liability is absolute or without condition,
regardless of the existence of express malice,
 while in qualifiedly privileged communications, it is
condition in the want or absence of express malice
PERTINENT AND RELEVANT STATEMENTS
IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE
ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED
 For reasons of public policy, utterances made in
the course of judicial proceedings, including all
kinds of pleadings, petitions, and motions are
absolutely privileged when pertinent and
relevant to the subject under inquiry, however
false or malicious utterances it may be

 The fact that a communication is privileged does not mean

that it is not actionable; the privileged character simply
does away with presumption of malice which the plaintiff
has to prove in such a case”
 TEST OF RELEVANCY
AND PERTINENCY
 It is a generally accepted rule that in order to be protected by
the mantle of privilege, the defamatory words must be pertinent
and relevant to the subject under inquiry

 The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so

palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the
controversy that no reasonable can doubt its irrelevancy and
impropriety.
 In determining the question, the courts are liberal, and the
privilege embraces anything that may possibly be pertinent.
 All doubt should be resolved in favor of its relevancy.
 EFFECT OF A
DEMURRER OR MOTION
TO DISMISS

Defamatory statements in a judicial proceedings

cannot be considered absolutely privileged where:
 Plaintiff avers in his complaint that said
statements are “not material, relevant and purpose
of mortifying the plaintiff and attacking his honesty
integrity and reputation and of exposing him to
public hatred and ridicule and

 defendant filed a demurrer or motion to dismiss

 WHEN TO RAISE
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
 If the statement alleged to be libelous is contained in an
appropriate pleading in a court proceeding, the privilege
becomes at once apparent and defendant need not wait until
the trial and produce evidence before he can raised the
question of privilege.

“ A privileged communication should not be subjected to

microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity.
Such excessive scrutiny would defeat the protection which the
law throws over privileged communication.”—Privileged
Communications in Judicial proceedings (People and Gonzales
vs Alvarez, L-19072)