Kunkle v. Cablenews-American
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Frederick A. Kunkle, a policeman in the service of the city of Manila, arrested a woman known as Mrs. Fuller (alias Mrs. Ward) for being drunk and resisting arrest. The woman, after escaping into her house, called the editorial office of the Cablenews-American and spoke with defendant Norbert Lyons, the editor, relating a story of her grievances. The next morning, the Cablenews-American published a news item under the heading "Hun Cop Attacks American Woman," alleging a "fiendish assault" by a German policeman on the woman. Subsequent publications clarified that the policeman was not German but born in Minnesota and that the woman had been arrested for drunkenness and resisting arrest. The plaintiff's name was not mentioned in any of the publications. Procedural History: The plaintiff instituted an action to recover P20,000 in damages for alleged libel. The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved the defendants. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the published news item constituted actionable libel against the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for injury to his feelings and reputation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, absolving the defendants from the complaint. The Court found that while the imputations in the publication were defamatory, there was no proof to sustain an award of damages because the publication did not contain anything from which a reader could connect the imputations with the plaintiff's personality. No third person was presented to testify that they recognized the plaintiff as the person referred to in the publication. The Court also noted the absence of proof of special pecuniary damage or injury to the plaintiff's reputation in the esteem of others.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the published news item constituted actionable libel against the plaintiff: The Court held that the published news item, while defamatory in nature, did not constitute actionable libel against the plaintiff. The reason is that there was nothing in the publication from which a reader could connect the imputations of libel with the personality of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that for a libel to be actionable, the defamatory matter must be published under conditions where third persons may understand it as applicable to the injured party, and this fact must be proven as an essential ingredient of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff's own testimony that he recognized himself as the person concerned was insufficient without proof that third persons could have identified him. The Court cited the California case of De Witt vs. Wright, stating that it is essential not only that the matter be written concerning the plaintiff but also that it was understood by at least some third person. On whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for injury to his feelings and reputation: The Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages. The Court reiterated that the gist of actionable injury in libel and slander consists of the impairment of the reputation of the injured party, which requires proof that the defamatory matter was understood by third persons as applicable to the plaintiff. The Court noted that no special pecuniary damage was alleged or proved, such as losing his position as a policeman, nor was it shown that his esteem in the eyes of others was suffered or could have been suffered by reason of the publication. The Court concluded that under these circumstances, a court would not be justified in awarding any sum as pecuniary compensation for the supposed wrong.
Main Doctrine
For an imputation to be considered actionable libel, it must be shown that the defamatory matter was published under conditions that third persons may understand it as applicable to the injured party, and this fact must appear as an essential ingredient of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff's own recognition of himself as the subject of the defamatory matter does not, by itself, constitute an actionable libel.