This is a unique libel case because it involves the use of a text message in a cellular phone as a means of publication of the allegedly libelous communication. This is the case of Tessie.
Tessie was the accounting manager of a realty and development corporation (ARDC). After working for almost four years, she decided to resign and was succeeded by Rita. However, she agreed to work for another month so that Rita would have sufficient time to familiarize herself with the job.
One month after finally leaving the company Tessie had to call Rita following up the payment of her remaining salaries, benefits, and incentives. Rita informed her that the benefits would be paid, but the check for the salaries was still unsigned, and that her incentives were put on hold by Rey, the company president.
To further press for such payment Tessie also sent the following text messages to one of the company’s cellular phones assigned to Rita:
“Grabe talaga sufferings ko dyan hanggang pagkuha ng last pay ko. I don’t deserve this because I did my job when I was still there. God bless Rey. Sana yung pagsimba niya, alam niya real meaning.
“Kailangan i-release niya lahat nang makukuha ko diyan including incentive up to the last date na nandyan ako para di na kami abot sa Labor.”
When Rey learned of such text messages, he filed a libel suit against Tessie. Rey alleged that Tessie’s text messages conveyed malicious and offensive insinuations that tend to destroy his good name and reputation and thus exposed him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule. So an Information for libel was filed against Tessie before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for maliciously impeaching Rey’s honor, virtue, character and reputation, and exposing him to public dishonor, discredit, contempt and ridicule published in the form of text messages sent through the company’s cellular phone.
Tessie filed a “Motion to Quash the Information” arguing that the text message merely reflected the undue stress she suffered due to the delay in the release of her salaries, incentives and benefits, and that they were sent as part of her duty to defend her own interests. She further argued that there is no malice in her text messages and they were not for consumption, so she could not be held liable for the crime of libel.
The RTC however denied her Motion to Quash. It ruled that texting to a person other than the person defamed constitutes sufficient publication, for the person to whom the text message is sent is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed.
But the Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed with the RTC. It ruled that Tessie has the right to express an opinion on a matter of undeniable interest to her. It held that the text message is not libelous since it does not serve to cast a shadow on Rey’s character and integrity, there being no direct and personal imputation of venality on him. Also, the CA said a responsible officer should not be so onion-skinned as to react through the filing of criminal charges.
The Supreme Court (SC) agreed with the CA. It pointed out that Tessie’s text message is “Privileged Communication” which is a communication in good faith, on any matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning which he has a duty, made to a person having a corresponding duty. A “privileged communication” is usually made in private and confidential in nature.
In this case, Tessie had an interest to protect and that she addressed it to Rita, an officer also having interest on the matter, hence it is privileged communication and was not meant for public consumption. Furthermore there was no unnecessary publicity of the message beyond that of conveying it to the party concerned, the SC declared (Synhunliong vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 200148, June 4, 2014).
Errata: In my rush to beat the deadline for the submission of my column last Monday, I made the following errors that must be corrected in the interest of fair and true reporting:
1. Ms. Emma Roxas who wrote the letter I quoted in the second to last paragraphs of said article regarding the questionable DOH measures on population control, is the president of the “Society of Catholic Social Scientists” (Phil Chapter) which co-sponsored the “Doctors for Life” conference.
2. The provision of the Constitution I cited in said column is found in Article VI Section 25(5) not in Article XVIII Section 25(5).
* * *
Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com