Professor loses libel case vs student

BAGUIO CITY—It was a case of the student knowing better than the teacher.

The editor of a campus newspaper on Thursday was acquitted by a court here of a libel charge filed by a journalism professor of the University of the Philippines Baguio.

Jesusa Paquibot, editor of the “Outcrop,” was sued in 2012 by journalism professor Ma. Rina Locsin-Afable, who claimed that her reputation was attacked by a parody column, “Yupiang Yupi,” in the paper.

But Judge Cecilia Corazon Dulay-Archog, of the Baguio Regional Trial Court Branch 6, said Afable failed to prove that the article was malicious and defamatory, stressing that it made no direct reference to the professor.

“Had private respondent (Afable) not revealed that she was the person referred to in the said column, the public would have remained unaware of her identity,” Archog said in her decision.

The column was a satirical discourse about a woman, identified as “Raulo Locaret,” who demanded “maximum silence” on classroom premises.

Afable attributed the column’s subject matter to a July 19, 2011 incident where she admonished students outside her classroom who were meeting for a rally and who, she said, were disrupting her class.

Fellow professors and some students said the article was about Afable. One of the teachers claimed that the column also attacked the reputation of Afable’s late father, newspaper publisher and editor Raul Locsin.

Paquibot said the column “centered on a message regarding freedom of expression and the right of students to exercise it.” She said the libel complaint left a “chilling effect” on the student paper at the time.

Veteran journalist and former BusinessWorld publisher Vergel Santos testified for Paquibot, saying the column was a parody which “portrayed a situation without causing specific personal harm.”

“A conviction for libel where the private complainant is a public figure must be based on evidence presented which proves accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt that the libelous statements were made or published with actual malice,” Archog said. “The prosecution failed to prove actual malice in the instant case.”

Citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, Archog also said hurt feelings and offended sensibilities were insufficient “to create a cause of action for defamation.” Kimberlie Quitasol, Inquirer Northern Luzon