A writer in the dock: The debasement of the journalistic profession

In his ‘Cocktales’ column entitled "Lawyers in the dock" published in the Aug. 5, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Mr. Victor C. Agustin savaged the reputation of ACCRALAW, our firm, by deliberate fabrication and distortion of the truth. The intent to inflict injury to our firm’s reputation was quite evident. The article, simply put, smacks of outright lying.

The sensational title of the article "Lawyers in the dock", the way the article was written, the underlying falsity of the statements therein, the utter lack of verification, and the clear implication of impropriety, incompetence or wrongdoing constitute probative evidence of an intent to ruin the reputation and professional standing of ACCRALAW. The article was essentially fabricated, most of the statements therein are out and out lies, and it was so written as to pass off falsity as truth.

It is not true that ACCRALAW last June "lost a Supreme Court case in behalf of its client Banque Nationale de Paris in its collection case against the ailing Proton Pilipinas/Autocorp Group" and that "Instead of simply depositing amended and correct filing fees ACCRALAW chose to fight out the 1998 case all the way to the high tribunal only to be rebuffed and to be told by the Third Division that indeed its client French bank had underpaid the filing fees because the clerk of court had used the wrong exchange and interest rate computation." These are malicious lies because ACCRALAW never handled in any manner any collection case of Banque Nationale de Paris whether in the Supreme Court or any other fora. A simple check of the Supreme Court records would have readily disclosed the name of the lawyer or law firm who handled the said case on behalf of the French bank; certainly, it was not ACCRALAW.

Likewise not true is the statement in Mr. Agustin’s article that during the last stockholders’ meeting of Equitable PCI Bank (EPCIB) Atty. Romulo A. Espaldon Jr., a senior partner of ACCRALAW, "ordered the bank guards to eject GSIS chair Winston Garcia from the meeting" and, for this reason, Mr. Agustin described the behavior of ACCRALAW during the meeting as "boorish". Again, this is a malicious lie; Atty. Espaldon never gave any order to anyone during the meeting, let alone ordered the ejection of anyone. Mr. Agustin did not bother to check the truth. The transcript of the proceedings during EPCIB’s stockholders’ meeting, based on an audio-tape recording of what transpired, is Annex ‘26’ of the comment filed by the Go family in the Supreme Court case initiated by the walk-out group led by Mr. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez which would have provided Mr. Agustin an accurate version of the proceedings had he only bothered to conduct a good faith investigation.

Another falsity is the statement in Mr. Agustin’s article that "[t]he ejection thankfully did not happen after bank vice chair Ferdinand Martin Romualdez reminded Espaldon that he and ACCRALAW had been hired to represent the entire bank, not to defend the Go family interests." Again, this is another malicious lie because he apparently did not even try to check the truth. First, Atty. Espaldon never gave any ejection order. Second, the statement of Mr. Romualdez, apart from not having anything to do with the purported ejection order, was made when he tried to muzzle Atty. Espaldon and, without being first recognized by the chairman of the meeting, insisted on talking ahead of Atty. Espaldon. Atty. Espaldon, being a gentleman, decided to yield the floor to Romualdez after the latter was reminded that Atty. Espaldon could not be stopped from expressing his views because he was then also a proxyholder. Third, Atty. Espaldon represented the interests of EPCIB, and no one else, in the meeting when he argued against the plainly ridiculous and out of order motions, arguments and questions of the walk-out group led by Romualdez. Fourth, Romualdez never told Atty. Espaldon "not to defend the Go family interests" because he knew that the latter never defended the interests of anyone other than those of the bank. All these are matters of record in the Supreme Court case.

It is highly deplorable and a debasement of his journalistic profession that Mr. Agustin did not bother to check his facts; there was an utter lack of any good faith investigation. Based on the utter falsity of the statements of Mr. Agustin, his article can reasonably be said to have been written with knowledge of falsity, the most damnable prong of the New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard which has been adopted by our Supreme Court. The facts were readily verifiable if Mr. Agustin had only exercised ordinary diligence. Mr. Agustin cannot plausibly say that he had a reasonable belief in the truth of what he published; a reasonable belief must be based on a sufficient investigation. The investigation must be extensive enough to support a publisher’s belief in the truth of the material published. The lack of any good faith investigation manifests a clear intent to do harm, to deceive, to pass off falsity as truth.

The very title alone of the article "Lawyers in the dock" raises the implication or insinuation of wrongdoing. The word "dock" refers to the place where the prisoner stands or sits in a courtroom during trial. By its title, which obviously was designed to attract readers, the article subtly imputes the commission of some wrongdoing or reprehensible conduct by ACCRALAW and its senior partner, Atty. Romulo A. Espaldon Jr.

The freedom of the press, precious as it is, carries with it the responsibility to conduct a good faith investigation before publishing anything that may cause reputational harm. The egregious failure to check the most obvious sources of possible corroboration or refutation before the publication of injurious speech raises a strong inference of knowing falsity or at the very least a reckless disregard for the truth. Mr. Agustin did not even bother to check his facts from court records or with any of the more than 100 lawyers of ACCRALAW. The Code of Professsional and Ethical Conduct of the Philippine Press Institute requires journalists, in the writing of a story, to observe the following: "All efforts must be exerted to make stories fair, accurate and balanced. Getting the other side is a must, especially for the most sensitive and critical stories. The other side must run on the first take of the story and not any day later."

The article of Mr. Agustin is symptomatic of the deplorable practices of certain elements of Philippine media today: irresponsible, mercenary, and just plain dirty.

(The author is an Of Counsel of the ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ Law Offices (ACCRALAW) and a professorial lecturer on evidence at the University of the Philippines College of Law and the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. He can be contacted at tel. #: 830-8000; fax #: 894-4697; or email: [email protected])