Santos v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nanerico D. Santos, a columnist for the Manila Daily Bulletin, published an article on February 23, 1970, titled "Charges Against CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc." This article was a verbatim quote from an unverified complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 13, 1970, by Rosario Sison Sandejas and her daughters. The complaint charged CMS Stock Brokerage Inc., its board chairman Carlos Moran Sison, and its president-general manager Luis F. Sison with engaging in fraudulent practices in the stock market. Procedural History: On February 23, 1970, Carlos Moran Sison met with petitioner Santos to submit a reply for publication. Santos promised to publish it in the February 25, 1970 issue, but failed to do so. Carlos Moran Sison then asked Santos not to publish the reply anymore. Subsequently, on March 4, 1970, Carlos Moran Sison and Luis F. Sison filed a complaint for libel against Santos and others. An information was filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal on November 16, 1970. The CFI dismissed the case against all accused except petitioner Santos. The CFI rendered a judgment of conviction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 25, 1976. The CA declared the article not a privileged communication and libelous. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court via a petition for review, raising the issue of whether the publication of a complaint filed with the SEC before any judicial action is taken thereon is privileged as a report of a judicial proceeding.
Issue(s)
Whether the publication of a complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission before any judicial action is taken thereon is privileged as a report of a judicial proceeding. Whether the article published by the petitioner is libelous.
Ruling
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the conviction of petitioner Nanerico D. Santos and ACQUITTED him of the crime of libel. The Court held that the publication was a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding and was made without malice, thus entitling the author to the protection and immunity of the rule on privileged matters under Article 354(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the publication of a complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission before any judicial action is taken thereon is privileged as a report of a judicial proceeding: The Court overturned the doctrine established in Barreto vs. Philippine Publishing Co. and Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine Publishing Co., which held that publishing an article based upon a complaint filed in court before any judicial action is taken thereon is not privileged as a report of a judicial proceeding. The Court, citing Cuenco vs. Cuenco and Manuel vs. Pano, held that a fair and true report of a complaint filed in court, made in good faith and without remarks or comments, should be covered by the privilege under Article 354(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reasoned that pleadings are presumed to contain allegations lawful and legal in nature, appropriate for the disposition of issues before the courts, and are of general public concern. Furthermore, pleadings are presumed to contain allegations substantially true because they can be supported by evidence presented in good faith and are subject to the scrutiny of courts. The Court emphasized that the doctrine from Barretto and Choa Tek Hee is no longer controlling and has been superseded. On the issue of whether the article published by the petitioner is libelous: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner was motivated by malice. It was evident from the published article that it was a faithful reproduction of a pleading filed before a quasi-judicial body, without embellishments, wild imputations, distortions, or defamatory comments calculated to damage the reputation of the offended parties. The petitioner, as a columnist whose beat was the stock market, was obligated to keep the public abreast of current news in that field. The Court resolved all doubts in favor of the petitioner, concluding that there was no libel. The Court reiterated that the rule on privileged communications developed because public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly administration of justice demand protection for public opinion, and such communications should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice and falsehood, as this would defeat the protection the law throws over them.
Main Doctrine
A fair and true report of a complaint filed in court, made in good faith and without comments or remarks, is privileged and comes under Article 354(2) of the Revised Penal Code, even if made before an answer is filed or a decision is promulgated. The doctrine established in Barretto and Choa Tek Hee cases is no longer controlling.