https://pingthing.law.

blog/2019/06/01/borjal-v-ca-case-digest-gr-no-126466/

Borjal v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999

BELLOSILLO, J.

Facts:

Arturo Borjal was the president of PhilSTAR Daily, Inc., and Maximo Soliven was the publisher
and chairman of its editorial board. Borjal was among the regular writers of The Philippien Star who runs
the column Jaywalker. The case stems from the articles written in Jaywalker, which called a certain
organizer of a conference a self-proclaimed hero.

Around that time, the First National Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT) was organized.
Its objective was to draft an omnibus bill that would embody a long-term land transportation policy for
presentation to Congress. The conference was estimated to cost around Php1, 815, 000, which would be
funded through solicitations from various sponsors. Private respondent Francisco Wenceslao was
elected as Executive Director of the FNCLT. As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the
business committee to support the conference.

The Jaywalker contained articles allegedly referring to these solicitation letters and other
defamatory statements. However, none of these articles named the organizer nor the conference
referred to. Wenceslao, thinking he was the one talked about in the article, filed a case of libel against
Borjal, Soliven, and others. The trial court as well as the appellate court found the accused guilty of libel.

Issue:

Were the courts a quo correct in convicting the accused of libel?

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals of 25 March 1996 and its
Resolution of 12 September 1996 denying reconsideration are, REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the
complaint for damages against petitioners is DISMISSED. Petitioners' counterclaim for damages is
likewise DISMISSED for lack of merit.

No costs.

NO. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is
not necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as
the person attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as
the object of the libelous publication. In the case at bar, these requisites were not complied with.

Even Wenceslao admitted that he had doubts whether he was really the organizer referred to in
the articles. In fact, he admitted that there were several organizers and that he spoke to Borjal to inquire
if he was the one talked about in the articles. Identification is grossly inadequate when even the victim is
unsure that he was the object of the attack.
 The other errors revolve around the issue of whether the articles constitute privileged
communications. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Article 354 of the RPC provides the
cases of privileged communication, to wit:

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention

and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and,

2) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report
or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise
of their functions.

The Supreme Court agrees that the articles are not within the exceptions of Article 354, but this
does not necessarily mean that they are not privileged. The enumeration under Article 354 is not
exclusive. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged. The conference is one
imbued with public interest, and Wenceslao is a public figure. The rule is that discreditable imputation
to a public official may be actionable, but it must be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a
false supposition. Honest criticisms on the conduct of public officials and public figures are insulated
from libel judgments.

IMPORTANT KEYPOINTS:

Prima facie evidence - evidence sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of fact unless
rebutted.

A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged.

Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted
in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art.VI, of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member
of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof. Upon
the other hand, qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this genre
belong "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks."

The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of the press. As held in Elizalde v.
Gutierrez and reiterated in Santos v. Court of Appeals—To be more specific, no culpability could be
imputed to petitioners for the alleged offending publication without doing violence to the concept of
privileged communications implicit in the freedom of the press. As was so well put by Justice Malcolm in
Bustos: "Public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly administration of government have
demanded protection of public opinion. The inevitable and incontestable result has been the
development and adoption of the doctrine of privilege."
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS MUST, SUI GENERIS, BE PROTECTIVE OF PUBLIC OPINION.
To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid
defense in an action for libel or slander.

Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation
of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad
faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Defamatory

Malice

Identifiable

If it is a private person being defamed (not a matter of public concern), malice is presumed. The burden
to prove is on the one publishing the questioned articles.

If you are sued for libel that is of public concern (honest mistake of reporters) – the burden of proving
malice is on the prosecution / public figure.

If you are sued for libel that is for private person – the burden