GR L 39258; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982
RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ROBERTO L. BAUTISTA, OSCAR S. ATENCIO, and POLICARPIO MAPUA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, Presiding Judge, Branch VII, Court of First Instance of Manila, ADEZ REALTY, INC., PILAR I. VDA. DE ZUZUARREGUI, PACITA JAVIER, ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI, and VICTORINO GASKELL, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Adez Realty, Inc. filed a collection suit against petitioner Policarpio Mapua to recover a loan. In his answer, Mapua, through his counsel (co-petitioners Armovit, Bautista, and Atencio), denied the allegations and asserted that the plaintiff corporation was an “instrument and front for illegal and oppressive usurious loan transactions” and that the complaint contained “fraudulent distortions of the facts.” The answer further elaborated that the underlying transaction was a usurious loan.
Subsequently, the private respondents filed a separate action for damages against the petitioners, alleging that the language used in the answer was libelous. The petitioners moved to dismiss the damages case, invoking absolute privilege for statements made in judicial pleadings. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss, prompting this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether the statements in the answer filed in the collection case are absolutely privileged, thus warranting the dismissal of the subsequent damages suit.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the assailed order. The Court held that utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all pleadings, are absolutely privileged communications. This privilege exempts parties and counsel from liability for words otherwise defamatory, provided the statements are pertinent or relevant to the case. The test of relevance is applied liberally; the matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy.
In this case, the challenged statements directly pertained to the defense of usury, which was the core of Mapua’s answer in the collection suit. They were, therefore, pertinent to the judicial proceeding. Consequently, the filing of the damages action based solely on these pleadings was improper. The respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case. Certiorari and prohibition were granted to annul the order and prevent further action in the damages case, and mandamus lay to compel its dismissal.