GR 29560; (March, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29560 March 31, 1976
MIGUEL CUENCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANUEL CUENCO, JOSE P. VELEZ, JESUS P. VELEZ, FEDERICO A. REYES, DIOSCORO B. LAZARO and NICOLAS JUMAPAO, defendants-appellees, DIOSCORO B. LAZARO and NICOLAS JUMAPAO, defendants-appellants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Miguel Cuenco, a congressman and former corporate officer, filed a complaint for damages against the corporate officers of Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. and Dioscoro B. Lazaro, publisher of “The Republic Daily.” The action stemmed from the newspaper’s publication of an article on August 3, 1958, which reproduced in full a complaint filed by the corporation (Civil Case No. 5665) against Cuenco. The published complaint accused Cuenco of illegal salary overdrafts and unauthorized collection of attorney’s fees. Cuenco alleged the news article was libelous, published with malice, and caused injury to his reputation.
The trial court dismissed the complaint against the corporate defendants and Atty. Nicolas Jumapao but held publisher Dioscoro Lazaro liable for damages. Both Cuenco and Lazaro appealed. Cuenco sought to hold all defendants liable, while Lazaro contested his personal liability for publishing what he argued was a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the publication of the full text of a judicial complaint in a newspaper constitutes a privileged communication, thereby exempting the publisher from liability for libel.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment against Lazaro and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against all other defendants. The Court held the publication was a privileged communication. The legal logic rests on the doctrine of fair and true report. A fair and true report of a judicial proceeding is conditionally privileged, provided it is made in good faith and without malice. The privilege exists even if the reported allegations are defamatory, to serve the public interest in being informed about court actions.
The Court found the published article was a verbatim reproduction of the corporation’s complaint filed in court. As such, it was a faithful report of an official court document. There was no evidence that Lazaro acted with malice or improper motive in publishing it; his role was that of a reporter disseminating news of public interest. The Court emphasized that for determining relevancy in this context, the allegedly slanderous charges are assumed true, however false they may be in fact. Consequently, the protective mantle of privileged communication shielded the publisher from liability. Regarding Atty. Jumapao’s counterclaim for damages, the Court found no basis, as Cuenco’s act of including him in the suit was an exercise of the right to litigate.