Fermin vs.

People,
G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008

Facts: Annabelle and Eddie Gutierrez filed complaint for libel against Cristinelli
Fermin for acting with malice and willfully and unlawfully circulate in the headline of
the said Gossip Tabloid when in fact, the accused knew that the same are entirely false
to disgrace as it represents, her to be a violator of justice and a swindler. RTC found
petitioner guilty of Libel. CA then ruled dated September 3,2002 affirming the
conviction of petitioner.

Issue: Are the articles libelous?

Ruling: Yes, the articles are libelous.

A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or

defect, real or imaginary; or any act, omission tending to cause the dishonor, discredit,
or contempt of a natural or juridical person.
Here, in her testimony the petitioner had motive to defame the complainants.
Hence, the petitioner cannot simply convince that there was no malice on her part and it
was not only malice in law, the articles are malicious itself as it was talking ill against
the complainants during election campaign.
51. Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999

Facts

Borjal and Soliven are among the incorporators of PhilSTAR newspaper. During
filing the complaint Borjal was the President and Soliven was a Publisher and Chairman
of editorial board. Borjal, among the regular writers runs the column Jaywalker. Borjal
published different dates on Jaywalker, the articles dealt with alleged anomalous
activities without naming or identifying private respondent.

The respondent filed a compliant with National Press Club against petitioner
Borjal.

Issue: Does the articles constitute privileged communications as to exempt the

author from liability?

Ruling: Yes, the articles constitute privileged communications as to exempt

the author from liability.

Qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are

not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable
motive.

Here, the questioned articles dealt matters of public interest, it the declared the
objective of the conference and composition of its members and participants and the
manner which intends to be funded lend to its activities with public interest.

52. Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008
Facts

Erwin Tulfo, et al. conspired together and mutually helping one another being
the columnist of REMATE, a tabloid published daily and of general circulation in
Philippines, they wilfully, unlawfully with malicious intent to dishonor Atty. Carlos So
with the intent to injure and exposed complainant to public hatred, contempt and
ridicule which was published on May 11,1999 wherein the lawyer was labeled as
extortionist and corrupt public official.

Issue: Can the articles be considered qualifiedly privileged communication?

Ruling: No, the articles are not qualifiedly privileged communication.

The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent
until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious,
nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in
his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.

Here, the articles only targeted one Atty. So of the Bureau of Customs as being
involved in criminal activities while in his public position for personal gain and called
Atty. So an embarrassment to his religion as well as he accused the lawyer of stealing
from the government.

53. De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221, March 25, 1999
Facts
 The named teachers participated in the illegal strike on September 19 to 21, 1990
and subsequently defied the return-to-work order dated September 17,1990 issued by
CSC which constitutes grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil
Service law.
The teachers argued that they made no violation because they only exercised
their right to freedom of assembly for grievances to the government.

Issue: Is the exercise of the right of assembly constitutional?

Ruling: No, the exercise of the right is unconstitutional.
Gan vs. CSC, the Supreme Court denied the claim that the teachers were thereby
denied their rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances reasoning that this constitutional liberty to be upheld, like any other liberty,
must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare.
Here, teachers committed prejudicial acts to the best interest of the service by the
mass protest on regular school days abandoning their classes and refusing to go back
after they were ordered.
Dual Allegiance.

105. Aznar vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990
Facts
November 19,1987 respondent Emilio Osmena filed certificate of candidacy with
the COMELEC for Provincial Governor of Cebu in January 18,1998 local elections.
Petitioner Anzar filed to the COMELEC disqualification of Osmena on the
ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino Citizen but an American and holder of Alien
Certificate of Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence issued at Manila.
Respondent Osmena contended that he is a Filipino citizen and a legitimate child
of Dr. Osmena a Filipino. He maintained he is a holder of valid subsisting Philippine
Passport and that he is residing in the Philippines since birth, has not gone out of the
country for more than six months and a registered voter since 1965.

Issue
Is the respondent, Osmeña, not a Filipino citizen?
Ruling
No, the contention is not meritorious.
Under C.A. No. 63., a Filipino citizenship is lost by any of these modes: (1) by
naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) by
subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country.
Here, respondent Osmena did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the
three mentioned. Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino
citizen or who are not. By virtue of being the sone of a Filipino father it was presumed
that the respondent is a Filipino. The petition failed to establish a fact.