MikeLigalig.com

By Priam F. Nepomuceno
Philippine News Agency

The Court of Appeals (CA), in a 10-page decision, reversed its decision finding the former editors and reporters of the defunct The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation (TMCP) guilty of libel and ordering them to pay tycoon Alfonso Yunchengo the amount of P101 million that would have a “devastating and catastrophic effect” on press freedom.

The CA's 15th Division, in a ruling penned by Associate Justice Amelita Tolentino, reversed and set aside its March 18 ruling which upheld the order of the Regional Trial Court(RTC) of Makati City issued on November 8, 2002.

In the said decision, the lower court held that Raul Valino, Neal Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino, Noel Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, Rodney Diola and Robert Coyuito (defendants-appellants) were guilty for the crime of libel and ordered them to pay Yuchengco the total amount of P101 million.

Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by the TMCP, the CA acknowledged that it failed to consider the proposition of the defendants-appellants that the subjects of the complaint fall within the concept of privileged communication implicit in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

The CA added that it disregarded the fact defendants-appellants claim that Yuchengco is currently a public official, since he has been appointed as Presidential Adviser on Foreign Affairs with Cabinet rank on Jan. 30, 2004 up to the present.

“Although malice is the essence of the crime of libel, we find that it is absent in the case at bar. The records are bereft of proof of actual malice on the part of the defendants-appellants for the imputations made in the subject articles,” the CA said.

Yunchengco had also previously occupied other prominent positions in the government such as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Presidential Special Envoy to China, Japan, Korea, Presidential Assistance on APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Conference) Matters, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Republic of the Philippines to the People’s Republic of China and Chairman of the Council of Private Sector Advisors to the Philippine Government on the Spratlys Issue.

The businessman also heads the Yuchengco Group of Companies such as the Rizal Banking Commercial Corporation (RCBC), Malayan Insurance, Great Pacific Life Assurance Company, and the Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT).

He also served as the chairman of the board of directors of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).

The CA said Yuchengco should be considered a public officer and that Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code should be used as a basis in dispensing the libel case.

The said provision states that “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for it is shown…”

The CA stressed that as applied to public figures complaining of libel, the provision must be construed in the light of the constitutional guarantee of free expression and upholding the standard of actual malice with the necessary implication that a statement regarding a public figure if true is not libelous.

The provision itself, the CA said, allows for such leeway, accepting as a defense “good intention and justifiable motive.”

The CA noted that the subject articles deal with the operations of corporations which are imbued with public interest considering that Benguet Corporation and Oriental Petroleum and Mineral Resources are both publicly listed corporations to which the general public, more particularly, the small investors, have a stake in the same.

It added that RCBC is also a publicly listed corporation engaged in banking, which is certainly imbued with public interest.

In its March 18 decision, the CA did not give credence to the claim of the appellants that the published articles fall under those classified as privileged communication and within the ambit of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press.

The appellants also insisted that the articles should be considered as fair report and commentaries on matters of public interest.

But in March 18 ruling, the CA pointed out that there is “preponderance of evidence” showing that there is malice in the writing and publication of the libelous articles published in the said newspaper.

It said that the appellants failed to get the side of Yuchengco before publishing the subject articles.

In his complaint, Yuchengco alleged that in last quarter of 1994, the Manila Chronicle published a series of defamatory articles against him branding him as a “Marcos crony” and naming him as a “corporate raider.”

Yuchengco stated further that the articles accused him of acting as a dummy for Marcos and Romualdez clans in Benguet Corporation, which company sought to take-over the management of Oriental Petroleum Mineral Corporation.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=14869.0