Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
Accordingly, after the parties submitted their respective Memoranda, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. On April 20, 1998, the trial court dismissed petitioner's Complaint, finding that there was no malice on the part of respondent in publishing the subject articles. Hence, the instant Petition for Review on the sole issue of - "(W)hether or not - on the basis of the facts admitted in the pleadings and Respondent's affidavits submitted to the Court a quo - Petitioner is entitled to a judgment for civil libel as a matter of law considering that only a preponderance of evidence is required to prove Respondent's liability." [3] We find no merit in the instant Petition. While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, there are exceptions to this general rule, set forth in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code , to wit - "ART. 354. Requirement of publicity . - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. 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 of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions." We agree with the lower court that the subject articles fall under the second exception for the following reasons: First , the articles complained of are fair and true reports of a judicial/administrative proceeding, which is not confidential in nature. They quote directly from the affidavit-complaint filed before the Ombudsman. Indeed, a perusal of the first article would readily show that it merely reported the filing of graft charges against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas. In so reporting, the article quoted from the affidavit-complaint filed by the complainant lawyer, Elias Tan, and narrated the antecedent facts leading to the filing of the graft charges. On the other hand, the second article presented petitioner's own reactions against the graft charges filed against him; with explanatory statements from Office of the Ombudsman Director Virginia Santiago refuting petitioner's claims that the said office had no jurisdiction over graft charges against judges for alleged violations of judicial canons. Second , there were no comments or remarks made by the reporter of private respondent in both instances. The articles were pure reports of the graft charges filed against petitioner. Third , they were both fair reports. The fairness and balance exercised by private respondent is evident in the fact that petitioner was given a chance to air his side on the graft charges filed against him. In fact, before the first article wa