Private matter of public interest

In a libel case, is it enough that the victim identify himself as the one alluded to in the libelous publication? And if the victim is a private person, can the doctrine of fair comment on matters of public interest be used so as to make the communication privileged and therefore not libelous in the absence of malice? These are the two issues resolved in this case of Amelia.

Amelia was the editor-in-chief and a columnist of a weekly newspaper published and circulated in Baguio City and the Cordillera region. She was also the sister of the President and General Manager of its publisher, BPPCI.

The alleged libelous matter came out in a series of articles dealing with candidates of the local elections in Baguio which Amelia wrote in her column particularly on January 10, 1988 as follows: "I heard that the "Dumpty in the egg’ is campaigning for Cortes. Not Fair. Some real doctors are also campaigning against Linao, because he has not paid their medical services to them. Since he is donating millions he should settle his small debts like the reportedly insignificant amount of P27,000 only".

Claiming that the phrase "dumpty in the egg" referred to him, and interpreting the same to mean someone who is a failure in his business undertakings, Linao instituted separate criminal and civil actions for libel against Amelia and BPPCI. He insisted that such phrase was baseless as he was successful in his various endeavors abroad. With regard to the remainder of the article, Linao said that Amelia made it appear to the public that he owed P27,000 in unpaid medical expenses while in truth, he could not remember having been hospitalized. Linao thus contended that Amelia’s column was tainted with malice. The Department of Justice however dismissed the criminal case for insufficiency of evidence.

As to the civil case, Amelia acknowledged having written the January 10, 1988 article but denied that the same was malicious and intended to destroy Linao’s reputation and integrity; that the phrase "dumpty in the egg" referred to another candidate and that the P27,000 pertained to Linao’s unpaid obligation to the publisher BPPCI, the exact amount of which was P27,415.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Linao’s complaint for lack of merit. According to the RTC, the article in question was privileged and constituted a fair comment on matters of public interest as it dealt with the integrity, reputation and honesty of Linao who was a candidate for local elective office at the time.

The Court of Appeals (CA) however reversed the RTC ruling and found Amelia and BPPCI liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The CA noted that Linao was, at the time the article was written, not a public official but a private citizen seeking an elective office and that from its tone and style it was written with malice as it was published a few days before the election to impeach the integrity and honesty of Linao and make him appear in the eyes of the electorate, unfit for public office. According to the CA, it was only in the disputed paragraph where a specific individual was named, so the phrase "dumpty in the egg" could only refer to Linao and the claimed P27,000.00 is only imputable to him. Was the CA correct?

No. It is true that the victim need not be named; that it is enough that he be identifiable by intrinsic reference to the facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may know he is the person referred to. But it is also not sufficient that the offended party recognize himself as the person defamed. He must prove that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication. In this case Linao has utterly failed to do so. Besides, a perusal of the paragraph in question easily reveals that the person alluded to by Amelia in her use of "dumpty in the egg" was someone who was campaigning for Cortes, another candidate for mayor. Identifying himself as the one alluded to in such phrase is totally contrary to human experience as he will be campaigning against himself.

The fact that Linao was not yet a public official at the time the article was published does not remove said article from the mantle of protection guaranteed by the freedom of expression provision of the Constitution. The public has a right to be informed of the mental, moral and physical fitness of candidates for public office. It is of utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character is so small, that such discussion must be privileged. Fair comment on matters of public interest which is true, or which expresses the real opinion of the author based upon reasonable degree of care and on reasonable grounds even if false, is privileged communication. The remedy of the person allegedly libeled is to show actual malice, or proof that the article was written with the author’s knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Linao was not able to prove that Amelia’s column was tainted with actual malice. So Amelia and BPPCI are not liable for damages for said article which constitutes a fair comment on a matter of public interest (Baguio Midland Courier etc. vs. Court of Appeals and Labo, G.R. 107566, November 25, 2004).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]