Cuenco v. Cuenco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Miguel Cuenco filed a complaint for libel against Manuel Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, Jesus P. Velez, Federico A. Reyes, Dioscoro B. Lazaro, and Nicolas Jumapao. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to print and circulate a newspaper article in 'The Republic Daily' on August 3, 1958, which contained false, untrue, and malicious imputations against the plaintiff, a Congressman, to ridicule, defame, and impeach his honesty and integrity. The article reproduced the gist and verbatim text of a complaint filed by Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. against the plaintiff, alleging illegal collections of salary and attorney's fees. The plaintiff claimed damages amounting to P800,000 actual and moral damages, P100,000 exemplary damages, and P100,000 attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissed the complaint against Dr. Manuel Cuenco, Jesus Velez, Jose Velez, and Atty. Nicolas Jumapao. It condemned Dioscoro Lazaro to pay the plaintiff P2,000 in damages. Plaintiff Miguel Cuenco appealed directly to the Supreme Court due to the amount of damages claimed, while defendants Dioscoro B. Lazaro and Nicolas Jumapao also appealed. The Supreme Court noted the deaths of defendants Dr. Manuel Cuenco and Jesus P. Velez and the substitution of their heirs. The Petition: Plaintiff-appellant Miguel Cuenco appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in finding Dioscoro B. Lazaro as the sole publisher without conspiracy, in holding that the publication was not privileged and libelous per se, and in awarding only nominal damages. Defendants-appellants Dioscoro Lazaro and Nicolas Jumapao argued that the trial court erred in holding the publication not privileged and libelous per se, and in condemning Lazaro to pay damages.
Issue(s)
Whether a conspiracy existed among the defendants in the publication of the allegedly libelous article. Whether the publication of a verbatim copy of a court complaint, before any judicial action or answer is filed, is protected by the mantle of privileged communication.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Dr. Manuel Cuenco, Jesus Velez, Jose Velez, and Atty. Nicolas Jumapao. It reversed the decision condemning Dioscoro Lazaro to pay damages, holding that the publication was privileged. Costs were against the plaintiff-appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that no conspiracy was established by a preponderance of evidence. It gave weight to the Trial Court's assessment of witness credibility, noting that the testimony of the plaintiff's primary witness, Guisadio, contained inherent improbabilities regarding the technical sequence of printing a newspaper. Specifically, the claim that page two was printed before page one was found to be contrary to the logical and practical operations of a printing press as testified to by the defense witnesses. The Court emphasized that motive alone, stemming from the long-standing legal battles between the Cuenco family members, is insufficient to prove a conspiracy to commit libel. In the absence of convincing proof, the legal presumptions of good faith and innocence in favor of the defendants remain undisturbed. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the news report was privileged even though the trial court had not yet acted on the complaint. It clarified that a fair and true report of a complaint filed in court, published without comments or remarks, falls under the protective mantle of privileged communication. The Court reasoned that pleadings are part of the public record and are presumed to contain allegations pertinent to the administration of justice. Relying on Sison v. David and Tolentino v. Baylosis, the Court held that while the doctrine of privileged communication may lead to hardships, the alternative would lead to greater hardships by suppressing the reporting of judicial affairs. Because the publisher merely reproduced the complaint without adding his own defamatory remarks, he could not be held liable even if the complaint's content was libelous per se.
Main Doctrine
A fair and true report of a complaint filed in court, even before an answer is filed or a decision is promulgated, is covered by the privilege of absolute privilege, and its author cannot be held liable for its publication.