Natividad v. Movie and Television Review and Classification Board
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Federico "Toto" Natividad, a movie producer and director, applied for a permit to exhibit the movie "Butakal (Sugapa Sa Laman)," allegedly based on the rape-slay case of Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong. The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) initially issued a permit with an R-Strictly for Adults rating. Procedural History: Private respondents, the Chiong family, objected to the movie's exhibition, citing its alleged brutal and lewd depictions and the sub judice nature of the case. They filed a petition for injunction with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent, ordering the MTRCB to cancel the permit. Meanwhile, the Office of the President directed the MTRCB to conduct a second review of the film. The MTRCB recalled the permit. Natividad filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the RTC case, alleging forum shopping by the Chiongs for seeking intervention from the Office of the President while the court case was pending. The RTC dismissed the case on the ground of forum shopping. Subsequently, the Chiongs filed a complaint with the MTRCB (MTRCB Administrative Case No. 25-99) seeking to prohibit the exhibition of "Butakal." The MTRCB, while denying due course to the complaint due to the sub judice rule, affirmed its recall order of the permit, noting the pendency of criminal cases on appeal before the Supreme Court. Natividad filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied his petition, finding the MTRCB orders interlocutory and that no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Petition: Petitioner Federico "Toto" Natividad seeks the reversal of the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in holding that the movie was a true-to-life depiction without a hearing, that the MTRCB acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not lifting the recall order, and that the MTRCB committed grave abuse of discretion in confiscating the VHS copy of the film.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the movie "Butakal (Sugapa Sa Laman)" is a true to life depiction of the celebrated rape-slay case of Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong of Cebu City without a hearing by the MTRCB. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the respondent MTRCB acted without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not lifting/dissolving the recall order even after it had not given due course to the petition. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the respondent MTRCB did not commit grave abuse of discretion in confiscating the VHS copy of the film "Butakal" for evidentiary purposes when the petition was not given due course.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The MTRCB is ordered to return the master copy of Butakal to petitioner and to resolve the administrative complaint filed by the Chiongs with dispatch. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA erred in holding that the movie was a true-to-life depiction without a hearing: The Court found this issue to be factual and irrelevant to the resolution of the case, which primarily concerned the jurisdiction of the MTRCB and the proper exercise of its powers. The Court reiterated the rule that petitions for review on certiorari should raise only questions of law, and factual issues are generally not proper subjects for the Supreme Court unless specific exceptions apply, which were not met in this instance. On the issue of whether the CA erred in not holding that the MTRCB acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not lifting the recall order: The Court ruled in the negative. It clarified that the MTRCB did not dismiss the Chiongs' complaint but rather suspended its proceedings because the determination of whether "Butakal" was libelous or defamatory was contingent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the related criminal cases. The MTRCB's affirmation of the recall order was therefore a procedural step taken in light of the sub judice rule, not a final resolution of the complaint. On the issue of whether the MTRCB committed grave abuse of discretion in confiscating the VHS copy of the film: The Court found that the MTRCB erred in seizing and retaining the master copy of "Butakal" for more than twenty (20) days. Citing Section 7 of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure, the Court stated that preventive seizure orders shall not exceed twenty (20) days from the date of issuance. Therefore, while the MTRCB had the power to recall the permit and to seize the copy as evidence, the prolonged retention beyond the statutory period was improper.
Main Doctrine
The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has the power to recall a permit to exhibit a film if it is found to be objectionable, particularly if it involves matters that are sub judice or potentially libelous. However, the MTRCB's power of preventive seizure is limited to twenty (20) days.