FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK (FBNI) vs.

AGO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER-

BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, (AMEC-BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO
G.R. No. 141994; January 17, 2005, J. Carpio

FACTS:
In their radio documentary called “Exposé”, Carmelo Rima and Jun Alegre (hosts) exposed various alleged
complaints from students, teachers, and parents against respondent AMEC-BCCM and its administrators. Exposé is
owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI).

Alegre stated, among others, that AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage, not merely of moral and physical misfits.
He also alleged that the AMEC’s Dean of Student Affairs, Justita Lola, is too old to work as her name implies and is
being exploited by AMEC.

Rima agreed that AMEC is a dumping ground for moral and physically misfit people. She alleged, among others,
that it is likely that the students of AMEC would be influenced by evil; that when they become members of society,
they will be liabilities rather than assets.

AMEC-BCCM and its College of Medicine dean, Angelita Ago, filed a complaint for damages against FBNI, Rima
and Alegre. FBNI was included as defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees.

RTC found only FBNI and Alegre liable for libel. Alegre’s utterances were baseless reporting, and that he did not
verify the reports before airing to show good faith. In absolving Rima from the charge, the trial court ruled that
Rima’s only participation was when he agreed with Alegre’s exposé. Rima’s statement was within the "bounds of
freedom of speech, expression, and of the press." FBNI and Alegre were ordered to pay, solidarily, P300,000 moral
damages.

CA affirmed the decision, with modification that Rima is solidarily adjudged liable with FBNI and Alegre. The
broadcasts were made "with reckless disregard as to whether they were true or false." Defendants failed to present in
court any student who allegedly complained against AMEC.

ISSUES
I. Whether respondent school, a corporation, is entitled for moral damages (topic-related)
II. Whether the broadcasts are libelous
III. Whether FBNI is solidarily liable with Alegre and Rima

HELD:
Note: This is a civil action for damages. While AMEC did not point out clearly the legal basis for its complaint, a
reading of the complaint reveals that AMEC’s cause of action is based on Articles 30 and 33 of the Civil Code.

I. YES, respondent is entitled for moral damages. Generally, a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages
because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings,
serious anxiety, mental anguish, or moral shock. 

Nevertheless, respondent’s claim for moral damages falls under the item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander, or any other form of
defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a
juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for
moral damages. 

Moreover, where the statement is libelous per se, the law implies damages. In such a case, evidence of an honest
mistake or the want of character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of damages. Neither in
such a case is the plaintiff required to introduce evidence of actual damages as a condition precedent to the recovery
of some damages. In this case, the statements are libelous per se. Thus, respondent is entitled to moral damages.

However, the award of P300,000 moral damages unreasonable. The record shows that even though the broasts were
libelous per se, AMEC has not suffered any substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, the award of
moral damages was reduced to P150,000.

II. Yes. The broadcasts were made public and imputed to AMEC defects or circumstances tending to cause it
dishonor, discredit and contempt. Rima and Alegre’s remarks such as "greed for money on the part of AMEC’s
administrators"; "AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage of xxx moral and physical misfits"; and AMEC students
who graduate "will be liabilities rather than assets" of the society are libelous per se. Taken as a whole, the
broadcasts suggest that AMEC is a money-making institution where physically and morally unfit teachers abound.

Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious. Rima and Alegre failed to show adequately their good
intention and justifiable motive in airing the supposed gripes of the students. As hosts of a documentary or public
affairs program, Rima and Alegre should have presented the public issues "free from inaccurate and misleading
information."

Had the comments been an expression of opinion based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion
happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. However, the comments of Rima
and Alegre were not backed up by facts. Therefore, the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous per se.
III. Yes. The basis of the present action is a tort. Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which
they commit. Joint tort feasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit. Thus, AMEC correctly anchored its cause of action against FBNI on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code.

As operator of DZRC-AM and employer of Rima and Alegre, FBNI is solidarily liable to pay for damages arising
from the libelous broadcasts. Recovery for defamatory statements published by radio or television may be had from
the owner of the station, a licensee, the operator of the station, or a person who procures, or participates in, the
making of the defamatory statements.

Moreover, there is insufficient evidence on record that FBNI exercised due diligence in
the selection and supervision of its employees. FBNI merely showed that it exercised diligence without introducing
any evidence to prove that it observed the same diligence in the supervision of Rima and Alegre.

PETITION WAS DENIED.