G.R. No. 227004 , April 25, 2023
ABS-CBN CORPORATION AND JORGE CARIÑO, PETITIONERS, VS. DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Criminal cases for murder were filed against 197 persons, including respondent Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre. During the pendency of these cases, on June 23, 2010, petitioner Jorge Cariño, a reporter for petitioner ABS-CBN Corporation, interviewed Lakmodin “Laks” Saliao, which aired on TV Patrol World. In the interview, Saliao narrated that he was present when the Ampatuan family planned the massacre and named the family members present. On July 16, 2010, Ampatuan, Jr. filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt against Saliao, ABS-CBN, and Cariño, claiming the interview was calculated to interfere with court proceedings. ABS-CBN and Cariño filed an Answer, arguing the petition failed to state a cause of action, citing freedom of the press and that pretrial publicity is prejudicial primarily in jury trials, not judge trials. The Regional Trial Court denied their affirmative defenses. The Court of Appeals dismissed their subsequent Petition for Certiorari, affirming the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the indirect contempt petition. ABS-CBN and Cariño elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Indirect Contempt filed against ABS-CBN and Cariño for airing an interview with a potential witness during pending criminal cases should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the media’s right to report on matters of public interest must be balanced with the court’s interest in the administration of justice under the sub judice rule. The qualified privilege of a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding does not extend to a media interview of a potential witness regarding their personal knowledge of facts relevant to a pending case, conducted prior to their court presentation. The Court found that the Petition for Indirect Contempt sufficiently alleged a cause of action, as the conduct complained of—broadcasting an interview with a key witness about the planning of the massacre while the criminal cases were pending—could constitute improper conduct tending to impede the administration of justice. The Court clarified the standards for indirect contempt in the context of public speech and media reporting, emphasizing the need to protect the fairness of judicial proceedings without stifling legitimate press freedom. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the indirect contempt charge.