GR 26549; (July, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26549 July 31, 1970
EUGENIO LOPEZ, publisher and owner of the “MANILA CHRONICLE” and JUAN T. GATBONTON, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FIDEL G. CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
In January 1956, news stories reported that a sanitary inspector named Fidel Cruz, assigned to the Babuyan Islands, fabricated a story about killings to secure transportation back to Manila, an incident branded as a “hoax.” This Week Magazine, published by the Manila Chronicle (owned by petitioner Eugenio Lopez and edited by petitioner Juan T. Gatbonton), featured pictorial articles on this “Calayan Hoax” in its January 15, 1956 issue and referred to the central figure as the “Hoax of the Year” in its Year End Quiz (January 13, 1956 issue) and January News Quiz (January 29, 1956 issue). Both magazine features inadvertently published the photograph of respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a businessman and former mayor from Santa Maria, Bulacan, instead of the photograph of the sanitary inspector Fidel Cruz, due to a switch of photographs on file in the newspaper’s library. Upon discovery of the error, petitioners promptly published a conspicuous correction with the correct picture in the January 27, 1957 issue, expressing profound regret. Respondent Fidel G. Cruz sued for damages. The Court of First Instance of Manila awarded him P5,000 as actual damages, P5,000 as moral damages, and P1,000 for attorney’s fees, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are liable for damages arising from the publication of respondent’s photograph in connection with a defamatory article about another person, and if so, whether the damages awarded should be reduced.
RULING
Yes, petitioners are liable for damages, but the amount awarded is reduced. The Supreme Court held that the publication constituted libel. The freedom of the press does not grant immunity from liability for defamation. The publication of respondent’s photograph in connection with a libelous article about a third person, thereby imputing the acts to him, is actionable. The defense of good faith and prompt correction does not absolve liability but is a mitigating circumstance. The Court, considering the absence of actual malice, the immediate publication of a correction, and the overall circumstances, found the damages awarded by the lower courts excessive. The decision was modified, reducing the total damages to P1,000.