Lopez publisher and owner of Manila Chronicle and Gatbonton
(Editor) v. Court of Appeals and Cruz (1970)
Ponente:
Fernando, J.
Facts:
o January 1956 – Front-page story
on the Manila Chronicle à Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector
assigned to the Babuyan Islands, sent distress signals to US Airforce planes
which forwarded such message to Manila
o
An American Army plane dropped emergency sustenance kits on the
beach of the island which contained, among other things, a two way radio set. Using the radio set Cruz reported to the authorities in Manila
that the locals were living in terror due to a series of killings committed on
the island since Christmas of 1955.
o
Philippine defense forces (scout rangers) were immediately
deployed to the babuyan claro. They were led by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion who discovered that Cruz only fabricated the story
about the killings to get attention. Cruz merely wanted transportation home to
Manila.
o
Major Encarnacion branded the fiasco as a “hoax” à the same word to be used by the
newspapers who covered the same
o January 13, 1956 - This Week
Magazine of the Manila Chronicle, edited by Gatbonton devoted a pictorial
article to it. It claimed that despite the story of Cruz being a hoax it
brought to light the misery of the people living in that place, with almost
everybody sick, only 2 individuals able to read and write and food and clothing
being scarce
o January 29, 1956 - This Week
Magazineà in the "January News
Quiz" made reference to Cruz as “a health inspector who suddenly felt
"lonely" in his isolated post, cooked up a story about a murderer
running loose on the island of Calayan so that he could be ferried back to
civilization.” à Called it “Hoax of the year”
o In both issues photos of a Fidel
Cruz were published but both photos were of a different person of the same name
à Fidel G. Cruz former mayor,
business man, contractor from Santa Maria, Bulacan
o
January 27, 1957 à published statements correcting
their misprint and explained that confusion and error happened due to the rush
to meet the Jan 13th issue’s deadline
o Cruz sued herein petitioners for
libel in CFI Manila. Cruz won and was awarded P11,000 in damages (5k actual, 5k
moral, 1k attorney’s fees)
o CA affirmed CFI decision hence
this case
Issue:
o WON petitioners should be held liable for their error in printing
the wrong Fidel Cruz’s photo in relation to the “hoax of the year”?
o
WON such error is sufficient
ground for an action for libel to prosper?
Held:
Yes they are
liable but damages awarded to Cruz is reduced to P1,000.00
Ratio:
1.
Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is
harmful on its face by the fact that it exposes the injured party to more than
trivial ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant.
o Citing Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui à libel is "malicious
defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or
the like, ..., tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead or to impeach
the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects
of one who is alive, and thereby "pose him to public hatred, contempt, or
ridicule,"
o Citing standard treatise of Newell on Slander and Libel à "Publication of a person's
photograph in connection with an article libelous of a third person, is a libel
on the person whose picture is published, where the acts set out in the article
are imputed to such person."
o
In this case à 3rd person was Cruz à his picture being published
beside the article imputes him as the purveyor of the hoax of the year
2.
Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also can
not claim any talismanic immunity form constitutional limitations
o State interest in press freedom à citing Justice Malcolm: Full
discussion of public affairs is necessary for the maintenance of good
governance… “Public officials must not be too thin-skinned with reference to
comments on official acts”…”of course criticism does not authorize defamation.
Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the state, so must expected criticism
be born for the common good.”
o So long as it was done in good
faith, the press should have the legal right to have and express their opinions
on legal questions. To deny them that right would be to infringe upon freedom
of the press.
o “Last word on the subject” à Citing Quisumbing v. Lopez:
Press should be given leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously
and effectively perform their important role in our democracy
o Freedom of the press ranks high
in the hierarchy of legal values
o TEST of LIABLITY à must prove there was actual
malice in publishing the story/photo! (Note: but this was not done in this case)
4.
Citing Concepcion, CJ. à Correction of error in
publishing does not wipe out the responsibility arising from the publication of
the original article
o Correction = Mitigating
circumstance not a justifying circumstance!
Dissent:
Dizon, J.
o Manila Chronicle should be
absolved because:
o
No evidence of actual malice
o
The article does not ascribe anything immoral or any moral
turpitude to Cruz
o
The negligence performed by Manila Chronicle is this case should
be considered “excusable negligence”
No comments:
Post a Comment