Soriano v. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. L-72383 · 1988-11-09 · J. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: · Primary: Criminal; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Private respondent Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA), filed a complaint for libel against petitioner Marcelo Soriano and six others. The complaint stemmed from press releases and articles published in "THE GUARDIAN" newspaper, which imputed to Tantuico the tampering of election returns during the May 14, 1984 Batasan elections, allegedly committed at Tantuico's behest to ensure the victory of certain candidates. The information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Leyte, alleging that the libelous acts were committed in Tacloban City and Palo, Leyte. Procedural History: Petitioner Soriano filed a motion to quash the information, arguing improper venue and lack of jurisdiction, contending that the case should have been filed in Quezon City where Tantuico held office and where "THE GUARDIAN" was published. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the press release was printed and first published in Tacloban City, thus laying proper venue. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) affirmed the RTC's decision. The case reached the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Petition: The petitioner argued that the RTC of Leyte lacked jurisdiction because the libelous article was printed and first published in Quezon City, where the offended party, a public officer, also held office. The petitioner further contended that his liability as editor-publisher arose from the publication in "THE GUARDIAN," not from the initial press release prepared in Tacloban City.

Issue(s)

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Leyte has the proper venue to try the libel case against petitioner Marcelo Soriano under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decision of the appellate court, and directed the RTC of Leyte to dismiss the case against the petitioner, Marcelo Soriano.

Ratio Decidendi

On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court of Leyte did not have the proper venue to try the libel case against petitioner Marcelo Soriano. The applicable law is Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1289 and Republic Act No. 4363, which specifies venue rules for libel cases, particularly when the offended party is a public officer. The Court clarified that while the information alleged that a press release containing the libelous article was printed and first published in Tacloban City, this did not automatically confer venue to the Leyte court for the editor-publisher of a national newspaper. As far as Soriano, the editor-publisher of "THE GUARDIAN," was concerned, his criminal liability stemmed from the publication of the article in his newspaper, which explicitly stated its editorial and business offices were in Quezon City. The Court stressed that the requirement of where the "libelous article was printed and first published" must be construed as referring to the publication of the article in the newspaper itself, not merely the prior issuance of a press release that the newspaper subsequently reproduces. To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent of the amendments to Article 360, which aimed to prevent harassment of media persons by allowing libel suits to be filed in any place where a newspaper is sold or circulated, instead of limiting venue to the place of publication or the public officer's office. Given that COA Chairman Tantuico held office in Quezon City and "THE GUARDIAN" was published there, the case should have been filed in a Quezon City court, in accordance with the rules recapitulated in Agbayani v. Sayo.

Main Doctrine

For purposes of determining venue and jurisdiction in libel cases involving public officers, the place where the libelous article is printed and first published is controlling, and each separate publication constitutes a distinct offense. The liability of an editor or publisher stems from the publication in their newspaper, not from the initial preparation or distribution of press releases.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →