MANILA, Philippines—An inaccuracy in a news story doesn’t necessarily prove malice in a libel case.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a libel case filed by a trial court judge against Philippine Daily Inquirer editors and a senior reporter, stressing the need to uphold the “constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.”
“The concept of privileged communication is implicit in the constitutionally protected freedom of the press, which would be threatened when criminal suits are unscrupulously leveled by persons wishing to silence the media on account of unfounded claims of inaccuracies in news reports,” said the high court’s first division.
The 12-page decision, promulgated on March 23 and released to the media Tuesday, was written by Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and concurred in by Chief Justice Renato Corona and Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo and Jose Portugal Perez.
The high court granted the petition for certiorari filed by Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot, editor in chief Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, managing editor Jose Ma. D. Nolasco, news editor Artemio Engracia Jr. and chief of reporters Volt Contreras.
A petition for certiorari is a special civil action wherein an aggrieved party may ask the court to annul or modify the actions of a person with judicial or quasi-judicial functions who is deemed to have acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
The respondents were then Justice Secretary Artemio Toquero and former Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Escolastico Cruz Jr.
Yambot et al. filed the petition for certiorari in 2005 after Toquero and the Court of Appeals dismissed their petition for review of the resolution of the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office finding probable cause for libel against them and court employee Robert Mendoza.
“In light of the particular factual context of the present controversy, we find that the need to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press and the crystal clear absence of a prima facie evidence case against the Inquirer staff justify the resort to the extraordinary writ of certiorari,” the high court said.
Absence of malice
Cruz was dismissed from service on Feb. 4, 2002, for grave misconduct, for disobeying the order of suspension against him in a case where he threatened a complainant with a gun during a traffic altercation, according to Supreme Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez.
In dismissing the libel case filed by Cruz, the high court said “the glaring absence of maliciousness in the assailed portion of the news article subject of this case negates the existence of probable cause that libel has been committed by the Inquirer staff.”
The case stemmed from a March 26, 1996, news report written by Contreras on the allegation of Mendoza that Cruz had mauled him.
In the report, Contreras quoted Mendoza as alleging that a sexual harassment case filed by a prosecutor against Cruz was pending in the Supreme Court.
Cruz countered by showing certifications from the deputy court administrator that he had only two pending administrative cases, neither of which was a sexual harassment complaint.
3 other papers
The Supreme Court said Cruz had concluded that there was malice on the part of the Inquirer for not checking the facts.
However, it said, the reporter “cannot be expected to make the fine distinction between a sexual harassment suit and a suit where there was an allegation of sexual harassment.”
It also pointed out that three other newspapers had made the same mistake of reporting that Cruz was facing a sexual harassment case.
“The questioned portion of the news article, while unfortunately not quite accurate, on its own, is insufficient to establish the element of malice in libel cases,” the high court said.
It showed the distinction between the two cases when it said that the allegation of sexual harassment against Cruz was only included in a petition for review filed by prosecutor Maria Lourdes Paredes-Garcia to question a contempt order issued against her by the judge.
In her petition, Garcia asked the court to look deeply into the allegation of a former staff member of Cruz that the judge had made sexual advances on her. She said she had suffered the same “indignities” from Cruz.
Straightforward report
The high court also noted Contreras’ claim that the statement in his article “constituted a fair and true report of a matter of grave public interest as it involved the conduct of a regional trial court judge.”
“The lack of malice on the part of the Inquirer staff in the quoting of Mendoza’s allegation of a sexual harassment suit is furthermore patent in the tenor of the article: it was a straightforward narration, without any comment from the reporter, of the alleged mauling incident involving Judge Cruz,” the high court said.
In fact, the tribunal said, the report was “replete” with other allegations by Mendoza against Cruz of supposed misconduct but the judge did not find these other accusations as reported by the Inquirer to be libelous.