G.R. No. 180197 June 23, 2009
FRANCISCO N. VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO P. BALAGUER and INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION CHANNEL-13, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco N. Villanueva, then Assistant Manager for Operations of Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation-Channel 13 (IBC-13), was dismissed from employment on March 31, 1992, on the ground of loss of confidence for allegedly selling forged certificates of performance. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. During the pendency of the labor case, news articles were published in the Manila Times, Philippine Star, and Manila Bulletin on July 18 and 19, 1992. In these articles, respondent Virgilio P. Balaguer, then President of IBC-13, was quoted as stating that he uncovered various anomalies at IBC-13, which led to the dismissal of an operations executive for selling forged certificates of performance. Petitioner sent a letter dated July 20, 1992, to respondents asking them to confirm or deny if he was the person alluded to in the articles. Respondents did not reply. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Balaguer and IBC-13, claiming the publications defamed him by falsely and maliciously referring to him as the dismissed operations executive, violating Articles 19, 20, 21, and 26 of the Civil Code. Balaguer denied involvement in the publications, arguing they were true, without malice, of public concern, and privileged. IBC-13 also denied participation, claiming any press statements were made solely by Balaguer without its authority. The Labor Arbiter found petitioner’s dismissal illegal, a decision affirmed by the NLRC, but moral and exemplary damages were deleted. The parties later entered into a Compromise Agreement. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioner, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, dismissing the complaint.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as framed by the petitioner, revolves around whether the failure of respondents to respond to his letter inquiring about the news articles constitutes an admission by silence that can be used as evidence against them, and whether admissions by a principal are admissible against an agent or by a jointly interested person against another.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof. The July 20, 1992, letter did not constitute an admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as the rule requires the statement to be made in the presence and within the hearing of the party, and the party must have the opportunity to deny it. A letter is not an act or declaration made in the presence of the addressee. Furthermore, the newspaper articles alone, which were hearsay, were insufficient to prove that Balaguer made the defamatory statements. The petitioner also failed to prove that Balaguer’s alleged admissions were made within the scope of his authority as an agent of IBC-13, as required by Section 29, Rule 130. Therefore, the complaint for damages was properly dismissed.