Ayer Productions PTY. LTD. vs.

Judge Capulong, 160

SCRA 865
FELICIANO, J.:

Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker, and his movie production company, Ayer Productions,
envisioned, sometime in 1987, for commercial viewing and for Philippine and international release, the
historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day
Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. Ramos also
signified his approval of the intended film production.

It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play, presented in a "docu-drama" style,

creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events, and utilizing actual documentary footage as
background. David Williamson is Australia's leading playwright and Professor McCoy (University of New
South Wales) is an American historian have developed a script.

Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition of his
name, or picture, or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production, film or other
medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of
Enrile was deleted from the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture.
However, a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. RTC ordered for the desistance of
the movie production and making of any reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any
fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is based on, or bears substantial or marked
resemblance to Enrile. Hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated.

Ratio: Yes. Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce motion
pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television. Furthermore
the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a commercial activity expected to yield
monetary profit, is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of expression.

The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience. Neither
private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look
like. There was, in other words, no "clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy.
Subject matter is one of public interest and concern. The subject thus relates to a highly critical stage in
the history of the country.

At all relevant times, during which the momentous events, clearly of public concern, that petitioners
propose to film were taking place, Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public figures were held to have lost,
to some extent at least, their right to privacy.

The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of
speech and of expression and the right of privacy, may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the
proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events.

Ruling: WHEREFORE,

a) the Petitions for Certiorari are GRANTED DUE COURSE, and the Order dated 16 March 1988 of
respondent trial court granting a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby SET ASIDE. The limited
Temporary Restraining Order granted by this Court on 24 March 1988 is hereby MODIFIED by enjoining
unqualifiedly the implementation of respondent Judge's Order of 16 March 1988 and made PERMANENT,
and

b) Treating the Manifestations of petitioners dated 30 March 1988 and 4 April 1988 as separate Petitions
for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order, the Court, in the exercise of its
plenary and supervisory jurisdiction, hereby REQUIRES Judge Teofilo Guadiz of the Regional Trial Court
of Makati, Branch 147, forthwith to DISMISS Civil Case No. 88-413 and accordingly to SET ASIDE and
DISSOLVE his Temporary Restraining Order dated 25 March 1988 and any Preliminary Injunction that
may have been issued by him.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.