Mercado v.

Court of first Instance

G.R. No. L-38753 August 25, 1982

FERNANDO, C.J.

FACTS:

 Petitioner Mercado was charged with libel for imputing to Mrs. Virginia Mercado as a
Member of the Public Service Commission acts constituting enrichment thru corrupt
practices.
o The offensive telegram which contained the allegations was addressed to the
Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Communications purportedly in
line with President Marcos' appeal to the public to give information on undesirable
employees in the government service to achieve the objectives of the New Society.
o “She has properties and spending above what her salary can afford with the
husband jobless”
 Mercado then filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the telegram is privileged
communication
o This was denied by the lower court. Another motion to quash was also denied.
 Respondent CFI of Rizal stress the absence of any privilege, as the communication was made
with evident malice and bad faith despite it being made in accordance with the president’s
appeal to give information on undesirable employees.
o That he was motivated by vengeance and ill-will in making the said communication, is
shown by, and can be established by the prosecution thru the testimony of Mrs.
Mercado and the following documentary evidence:
 October 14, 1972: petitioner filed a letter-complaint with the Chairman of the
Board of Transportation, against the private respondent, for alleged grave
violations of the Rep. Act No.2260 and civil service rules
 Fourteen (14) days after the filing of the aforementioned administrative
complaint by petitioner against the private respondent, the said petitioner sent
the subject libelous telegram, which was indorsed for investigation to the Board
of Transportation
 November 23, 1972: petitioner filed an amended administrative complaint
against the private respondent with the same Board of Transportation charging
the private respondent with dishonesty, pursuit of private business or corrupt
practices, and misconduct or discourtesy
 Mrs. Mercado submitted her answer to the said administrative charges, and
after due hearing, the Board of Transportation rendered a decision finding the
herein private respondent as innocent of the charges, and dismissing the
complaint
 Petitioner, as complainant therein, filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision of the Board of Transportation, which was denied for lack of merit
 While the amended admin complaint was pending before the Board, the
petitioner, to further harass and malign the good character and reputation of
the private respondent, filed with the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group
 (CHPG), a complaint against the private respondent and her husband Lorenzo
M. Mercado accusing them of selling a Ford Willy’s engine, which was car-
napped. This case was eventually closed for lack of evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the telegram being qualifiedly privileged should be the basis for the special civil
action for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition

HELD:

No. Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Certiorari to annul the order denying the motion to
quash as well as the motion for reconsideration does not lie. Nor should the court be prohibited from
hearing the aforesaid criminal action.

DOCTRINE: The Supreme Court, in dismissing the petition, held that qualified privilege communication
may be lost by proof of malice, that the prosecution should be given the opportunity of proving malice
in view of petitioner's conduct towards private respondent which casts doubt on his good faith.

RATIO:

In US vs Bustos,

 Justice Malcolm pointed out that qualified privilege such as in this instance, may be “lost by
proof of malice.”
 Privileged communication: A communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which
the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if
made to a person