G.R. No. L-9476; March 17, 1915
ANTONIO M. BARRETTO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE PUBLISHING CO., defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Antonio M. Barretto filed an action for damages against the Philippine Publishing Co., owner and publisher of The Manila Times, for publishing an allegedly libelous article. The article reported on an answer filed in a civil case (Murray Commercial Co. vs. Jose Santa Marina) pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The answer contained allegations that a contract, which was the subject of the suit, was entered into by Barreto “in bad faith and for the purpose of defrauding” Jose Santa Marina and the heirs of Joaquin Santa Marina. At the time of publication, the only judicial actions taken in that case were the filing of the complaint, a demurrer, an order overruling the demurrer, and the subsequent filing of the answer. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that while the article was libelous per se, its publication was privileged as a fair and true account of a judicial proceeding under Sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 277 . Barretto appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the publication of the contents of an answer filed in court, before any judicial action has been taken upon it, constitutes a privileged publication as a “fair and true report of any judicial… proceeding” under Act No. 277 .

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment.
The Court held that a pleading, such as an answer, does not become part of a judicial proceeding entitled to privilege at the mere moment of its filing. The privilege to publish its contents attaches only when the court begins to act judicially and publicly upon itthat is, when the court takes some action to determine the truth or falsity of its allegations, with an opportunity for the parties to be heard. At the time of the publication, the court had not acted upon the answer; it was merely on file. Therefore, the publication was not a report of a “judicial proceeding” within the meaning of the law.
The Court emphasized that the public’s right to know court proceedings is based on the necessity of knowing whether public officers (judges) are properly performing their duty, not on mere public curiosity. To allow the publication of defamatory allegations contained in preliminary pleadings without judicial scrutiny would cause unwarranted mischief, as such allegations may be entirely baseless. The defendant newspaper, having published a libelous article not covered by privilege, is liable for damages. The Supreme Court fixed the damages at Three Hundred Pesos (P300) and rendered judgment in favor of appellant Barretto for that amount plus costs.