G.R. No. 146848 ; October 17, 2006
GMA NETWORK, INC. and REY VIDAL, petitioners, vs. JESUS G. BUSTOS, M.D., et al., respondents.

FACTS

In February 1988, GMA Network, through reporter Rey Vidal, aired a news report on the filing of a mandamus petition by unsuccessful examinees of the August 1987 physicians’ licensure examinations. The report, based on the petition’s allegations, stated that the examinees sought to compel the Professional Regulation Commission and the Board of Medicine to recheck test papers due to “gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical and capricious checking.” It detailed alleged errors in scoring and checking that lowered examinees’ ratings. The report also included unrelated 1982 footage of doctors with black armbands, originally from a wage dispute, which was shown during the segment.
The respondents, who were the Chairman and members of the Board of Medicine, filed a damage suit for defamation against GMA and Vidal. They alleged the news item was false, malicious, and one-sided, and that the use of the old footage falsely implied that other doctors supported the examinees’ claims. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, finding the report a fair and true account of a judicial proceeding. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the defendants liable for defamation and awarding moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the televised news report constituted defamation, or was a privileged communication as a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, absolving the petitioners of liability. The Court held that the news report was a fair and true report of an official judicial proceeding, which is a privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. The report was a substantially accurate summary of the allegations contained in the mandamus petition filed in court. The privilege attaches even if the statements in the underlying proceeding are false or defamatory, provided the report is made in good faith and without comments or remarks.
The Court found the report was factual, devoid of malicious commentary, and involved a matter of public interest concerning the conduct of a government licensure examination. On the use of the 1982 footage, the Court ruled it was a neutral “file video” or “wallpaper video” commonly used in broadcast journalism due to the absence of actual footage of the filing. Its use did not alter the factual nature of the report or constitute malice, as it was not presented as a live event. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press protects such reports on matters of public concern, and no actual malice—reckless disregard for the truth—was proven.