MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc.

Petitioners: MVRS Publications, Inc., Mars C. Laconsay, Myla C. Aguja and Agustino C. Binegas, Jr.
Respondents: Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., Abdul-Rahman RT Linzag, Ibrahim FP
Arcilla, Abdul Rashid de Guzman, etc
Topic: Free Speech

Facts:
 Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., a local federation of more than 70 Muslim
religious organizations and individual Muslims filed in the RTC-Manila a complaint for damages
in their own behalf and as a class suit in behalf of the Muslim members nationwide against
MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC., etc. arising from an article published in the 1 August 1992 issue of
Bulgar, a daily tabloid.
 The article reads:

"ALAM BA NINYO?

Na ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng mga
Muslim?

Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay. Hindi nila ito kailangang kainin
kahit na sila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam sa tuwing sila ay kakain. Ginagawa nila itong
Diyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tuwing araw ng kanilang pangingilin lalung-lalo na sa araw na
tinatawag nilang 'Ramadan'."

 The complaint alleged that

1.) the libelous statement was insulting and damaging to the Muslims;
2.) that these words alluding to the pig as the God of the Muslims was not only published out of
sheer ignorance but with intent to hurt the feelings, cast insult and disparage the Muslims
and Islam, as a religion in this country, in violation of law, public policy, good morals and
human relations
3.) that on account of these libelous words Bulgar insulted not only the Muslims in the
Philippines but the entire Muslim world, especially every Muslim individual in non-Muslim
countries.
 MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC., and AGUSTINO G. BINEGAS, JR., in their defense, contended that
1.) the article did not mention respondents as the object of the article and therefore were not
entitled to damages; and,
2.) that the article was merely an expression of belief or opinion and was published without
malice nor intention to cause damage, prejudice or injury to Muslims.
 The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their cause
of action since the persons allegedly defamed by the article were not specifically identified.
 The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the TC. It opined that it was “clear... that the
defamation was directed to all adherents of the Islamic faith.”
 Hence, the petition for review.
Issues:
1. WoN private respondents have a cause of action and have the right to institute a class suit
 NO
 There was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Since the
persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, private respondents have no individual
causes of action; hence, they cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged.
 An individual Muslim has a reputation that is personal, separate and distinct in the community.
o Each Muslim, as part of the larger Muslim community in the Philippines of over five (5)
million people, belongs to a different trade and profession; each has a varying interest
and a divergent political and religious view — some may be conservative, others liberal.
o There is no injury to the reputation of the individual Muslims who constitute this
community that can give rise to an action for group libel. Each reputation is personal in
character to every person.
o Together, the Muslims do not have a single common reputation that will give them a
common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy.
 Principle: As the size of these groups increases, the chances for members of such groups to
recover damages on tortuous libel becomes elusive.
 The Muslim community is too vast as to readily ascertain who among the Muslims were
particularly defamed. The size of the group renders the reference as indeterminate and generic
as a similar attack on Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists or Mormons would do.

2. WoN an “emotional distress” tort is applicable in this case

 NO
 An "emotional distress" tort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civil action filed by
an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility due to personal attacks on his
character.
 It is not applicable in the present case since no particular individual was identified in the
disputed article of Bulgar.
 Also, the purported damage caused by the article falls under the principle of relational harm
(harm to social relationships in the community in the form of defamation) as distinguished from
reactive harm (infliction of emotional distress).
o Respondents asserted an alleged harm to the standing of Muslims in the community.

3. WoN respondents can claim damages

 NO
 None of the requirements to sustain an award for damages were adequately established by
respondents.
(ex. Moral damages – existence of factual basis; Exemplary damages – right to moral,
temperate, liq or compensatory damages)