G.R. No. 229440 , July 14, 2021
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., Donna Cueto, Artemio T. Engracia, Jr., and Abelardo S. Ulanday, Petitioners, vs. Juan Ponce Enrile, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Senator Juan Ponce Enrile filed a civil action for libel against petitioners Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (a newspaper publisher), Donna Cueto and Dona Pazzibugan (authors), and Abelardo Ulanday, Artemio T. Engracia, Jr., and Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc (editors). The case stemmed from a front-page news article titled “PCGG: no to coconut levy agreement” published on December 4, 2001, co-written by Cueto and Pazzibugan. The article contained statements attributed to then PCGG Chairperson Haydee Yorac, alleging that a proposed settlement would allow “Marcos cronies,” including Enrile, to “keep their plundered loot” and that Enrile had “plunder[ed] the coco levy fund.” After reading the article, Enrile’s counsel wrote to Commissioner Yorac, who denied in writing having made the statements attributed to her, clarifying she did not mention Enrile’s name and was not interviewed for the article. Enrile demanded a rectification and public apology from the petitioners, which was not heeded. During trial, Cueto testified that she based the article on a press statement handed to her by PCGG Commissioner Carranza on a Sunday, who assured her it was official. She attempted to verify with Commissioner Yorac on Monday but was told Yorac was in a meeting and did not return before her deadline. She did not verify the truth of the accusations against Enrile, relying on the official source, and did not interview Enrile. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Enrile, finding the article defamatory and published with malice, and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are liable for libel for publishing the article containing defamatory statements against respondent Enrile.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATION, deleting the award of exemplary damages. The Court held petitioners liable for libel.
The elements of libel are present: (1) the article was defamatory, imputing to Enrile the crimes of plunder and accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, which are inherently defamatory; (2) it was malicious, as the statements were falsely attributed to Yorac who categorically denied them, and petitioners failed to exercise the required diligence in verification; (3) Enrile was identifiable; and (4) the article was published. The defense of privileged communication under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code was not applicable. The fair report privilege requires that the report be both fair and true. The report was not true as to the source, as Yorac denied being the author. Furthermore, petitioners acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Cueto failed to conduct an adequate verification despite the seriousness of the accusations and the denials from Yorac. The press statement was obtained on a Sunday from a lone commissioner, not the full PCGG, and Cueto did not wait for Yorac’s return or contact other commissioners. This failure to verify, coupled with the immediate publication without seeking Enrile’s side, constituted actual malice. The award of moral damages was sustained due to the injury to Enrile’s reputation. However, exemplary damages were deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances. Attorney’s fees and costs were affirmed.