G.R. No. 159813 August 9, 2006
Tony N. Figueroa and Rogelio J. Flaviano, Petitioners, vs. The People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Tony N. Figueroa, a columnist, and Rogelio J. Flaviano, the publisher-editor of the People’s Daily Forum, were charged with libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about April 9, 1991, they conspired to publish a column entitled “Footprints” containing defamatory statements against Aproniano Rivera. The article described Rivera as a “bully,” “thug,” “hooligan,” “gypper,” “leech,” and “paper tiger,” accusing him of lording over the Bangkerohan public market, intimidating vendors, and being involved in schemes to manipulate stall distribution. It further claimed he had “dirty antics” and was backed by “powerful city government hooligans.”
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty and ordered them to pay moral damages and attorney’s fees to Rivera. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for libel.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. The Court held that all the elements of libel were present. The article was defamatory, as the words used imputed the commission of a crime, vice, or defect that tended to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. It was malicious, as malice in law is presumed from the defamatory character of the statements. The publication was made publicly through a newspaper. Finally, the complainant, Aproniano Rivera, was identifiable as the person defamed.
The Court rejected petitioners’ defense of qualified privilege under Article 354(2) of the Revised Penal Code, which covers fair and true reports of official proceedings. The defense failed because the article was not a report of any official proceeding but an editorial column containing accusatory commentary. Even if it were a report, it would not qualify as a “fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks,” as required by law. The column was replete with derogatory labels and personal attacks, far from a dispassionate account.
The award of moral damages and attorney’s fees was upheld. Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code allows recovery of moral damages for libel. The publication’s defamatory nature naturally caused wounded feelings and besmirched reputation, exposing Rivera to public contempt and ridicule, as evidenced by his embarrassment and depression upon reading it. Therefore, the trial court correctly granted the award.