G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999
Arturo Borjal a.k.a. Art Borjal and Maximo Soliven, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Francisco Wenceslao, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Arturo Borjal and Maximo Soliven are incorporators of Philippines Today, Inc., owner of The Philippine Star newspaper. Borjal was its President and wrote the column “Jaywalker,” while Soliven was Publisher and Chairman of the Editorial Board. Private respondent Francisco Wenceslao is a civil engineer, businessman, and journalist who served as a technical adviser to Congressman Fabian Sison. In 1988, a House Sub-Committee agreed to organize the First National Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT) to draft an omnibus bill on land transportation policy. Wenceslao was elected Executive Director of the FNCLT and wrote solicitation letters to fund the conference, estimated to cost around P1,815,000.00. Between May and July 1989, Borjal published a series of articles in his column criticizing an unnamed “organizer of a conference” for alleged anomalous activities, such as unauthorized use of government officials’ names in solicitations, mulcting, and influence-peddling. Wenceslao filed a complaint for damages, claiming the articles referred to him and the FNCLT, and were defamatory. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners solidarily liable for damages.

ISSUE

Whether the articles written by petitioner Borjal and published in The Philippine Star are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, or whether they constitute libel for which petitioners are liable for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the articles are privileged communications and constitute fair comment on a matter of public interest. The rule on limited privilege, also known as the doctrine of fair comment, applies as the articles involved a matter of public concern—the alleged misuse of public funds and influence-peddling related to a conference intended to address the national transport crisis. The articles were based on facts supported by evidence, including letters from government officials like Secretary Rainerio Reyes, who disauthorized the use of his name and characterized the conference as a “moneymaking gimmick.” The Court emphasized that for a defamatory imputation to be actionable, it must be directed at an identifiable person. While Wenceslao claimed the articles referred to him, the pieces did not mention his name or the FNCLT explicitly; his identification was based on inference. Furthermore, the Court adopted the “actual malice” rule from New York Times v. Sullivan, requiring that for a public figure to recover damages for defamatory falsehoods, it must be proven that the statement was made with actual malice—knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Wenceslao, as a participant in a public conference funded by solicitations, was a public figure on this matter, and no actual malice was proven. The writings were deemed fair commentaries on issues of public interest, made in good faith, and thus protected by freedom of the press.