Castro vs People of the Philippines

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: Whether or not petitioner may be liable for damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code.

Held: Yes. 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;

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.