G.R. No. L-19726; April 13, 1967
DOMINGO IMPERIAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VENANCIO P. ZIGA and ANASTACIA V. DE MUÑOZ, deceased, substituted by APOLONIO R. MUÑOZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Domingo Imperial filed an action for libel against Venancio P. Ziga, Lorenzo P. Ziga, Anastacia V. de Muñoz, and Alfredo Caldino to recover moral and exemplary damages. The case was dismissed against Lorenzo P. Ziga (due to his death) and Alfredo Caldino, proceeding only against Venancio P. Ziga and Anastacia V. de Muñoz (Mrs. Muñoz). The action was based on three publications: (1) Exhibit F, a mimeographed article entitled “History of the Last Elections in Albay” by-lined “by Gov. Venancio P. Ziga,” which accused the Imperial family of wanting to perpetuate themselves in leadership and using dummies for illicit transactions; (2) Exhibit N, a sworn letter by Mrs. Muñoz to the Commission on Appointments alleging that Domingo Imperial lacked honesty, committed treachery and sabotage, engaged in nepotism, smuggled and sold goods, misappropriated UNRRA clothing, and abused his position; and (3) Exhibit Q, another letter by Mrs. Muñoz to the same Commission containing similar accusations, including sending false pre-filled ballots to Bicol provinces. The defendants did not deny the libelous nature of the imputations but questioned the evidence of authorship and claimed the communications were privileged. The trial court found defendants liable for libel, ordering them to pay jointly and severally P20,000 as moral damages and dismissing their counterclaim. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the authorship of the libelous publications by the defendants, and (2) whether the publications, particularly Exhibits N and Q, were privileged communications.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications. It held that: (1) The evidence sufficiently established that Venancio P. Ziga was the author of Exhibit F and caused its distribution, and that he was the real author of Exhibits N and Q, with Mrs. Muñoz merely acting as his tool by lending her name and signature. (2) Exhibit F was not privileged. While Exhibits N and Q, being sent to the Commission on Appointments regarding Imperial’s confirmation, had the color of qualified privileged communications, the presumption of malice under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code applied because the defendants acted with actual malice—they concealed the true authorship, used intemperate language, and failed to prove the truth of the imputations or have reasonable grounds to believe them. The award of P20,000 as moral damages was justified. The Court denied the claim for exemplary damages, as its award is discretionary and not warranted here, but granted legal interest on the damages from the date of the trial court’s decision (December 10, 1959). Due to the death of Mrs. Muñoz, she was substituted by her spouse Apolonio R. Muñoz, and Domingo Imperial’s legal representative or heirs were to be substituted for him. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.