The doctrine of privileged communication

Whenever a person makes a statement in a court pleadings or document, whatever he says there, as a general rule, cannot be used against him because it is called privileged communication, and he is absolutely immune from suit. That is what the Supreme Court says in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

In the case of Godofredo V. Arquiza v. People of the Philippines, GR no 261627, promulgated on November 13, 2024 by the Supreme Court 3rd Division through the pen of Justice Rosario who opened the decision as follows: "Absolute immunity from suit applies to defamatory statements made not only in judicial proceedings but also in quasi-judicial proceedings, which includes steps necessarily preparatory thereto."

The Supreme Court, however, hastened to interject a condition: "provided that such proceedings afford procedural protections similar to those in judicial proceedings, and that the statement is relevant thereto and is communicated by the author only to those who have a duty to perform with respect to the document containing the statement and to those legally required to be served a copy thereof."

The Supreme Court then laid down the so-called four-fold test to determine whether to apply absolute privilege to statements made in the course of quasi-judicial proceedings, or in steps necessarily preliminary thereto: First, is the Quasi-Judicial Powers Test, which asks: "Was the document containing the alleged defamatory statement filed or submitted as a necessarily preliminary step to or during a quasi-judicial proceeding?”

The second is the Safeguards Test, asking: "Does the proceeding afford procedural protections similar to those provided by the judicial process? The third is the Relevancy Test, which asks: "Was the alleged defamatory statement relevant and pertinent to such proceedings?” These requirements should be complied with so that any person accused of libel may invoke the defense of absolute immunity from suit.

The fourth is the Non-Publication Test asking: "Was the document containing the alleged defamatory statement communicated by the author only to those who have a duty to perform with respect to it and to those legally required to be served a copy thereof?” This last test would be indicative of lack of malice on the part of the author.

Concerning the first test, the Supreme Court held that a Comelec proceeding qualifies as a quasi-judicial case and any statement made in an election case is covered by the doctrine of absolute immunity. On the second test, the law and jurisprudence requires that the procedural due-process are complied with, including notice and an ample opportunity to be heard.

The third requirement says that all doubts shall be resolved in favor of relevancy. The fourth requirement says that "when a person sends a communication to an office/officer which/who has a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of the communication, such communication does not amount to publication."

The Supreme Court thus concluded: "The foregoing tests having been satisfied, We hold that petitioner's statements in this Petition to Deny Due Course are covered by absolute privilege, thus warranting his acquittal." The accused who was convicted by the Regional Trial Court was therefore acquitted by the Supreme Court.

Let it be known to all then that no one can be prosecuted and be held liable for a statement made in an official complaint, answer, reply, rejoinder, or affidavit in support thereof. But all the four tests should be hurdled and fully complied with.