JAL vs SIMANGAN GR 170141 (April 22, 2008) FACTS: In this petition for review on certiorari,petitioner JAL appeals the:

(1) Decision of the CA ordering it to pay respondent Jesus Simangan moral and exemplary damages; and (2) Resolution5 of the same court denying JAL's motion for reconsideration. The facts herein follow: In 1991, respondent Simangan decided to donate a kidney to his ailing cousin, Loreto Simangan, in UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Respondent needed to go to the United States to complete his preliminary work-up and donation surgery. Hence, to facilitate respondent's travel to the United States, UCLA wrote a letter to the American Consulate in Manila to arrange for his visa. In due time, respondent was issued an emergency U.S. visa by the American Embassy in Manila.Having obtained an emergency U.S. visa, respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket from petitioner JAL and was issued the corresponding boarding pass. While inside the airplane, JAL's airline crew suspected respondent of carrying a falsified travel document and imputed that he would only use the trip to the United States as a pretext to stay and work in Japan.The stewardess asked respondent to show his travel documents. Shortly after, the stewardess along with a Japanese and a Filipino haughtily ordered him to stand up and leave the plane.Respondent protested, explaining that he was issued a U.S. visa. However, He was still constrained to go out of the plane. Hence, he filed a case against JAL airlines. ISSUE: Are commentaries on public officials and on matters of public interests, privileged? RULING: As explained in the case of Borjal v. Court of Appeals, to wit: To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. Even though JAL is not a public official, the rule on privileged commentaries on matters of public interest applies to it. The privilege applies not only to public officials but extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern, public men, and candidates for office. Considering that the published articles involve matters of public interest and that its expressed opinion is not malicious but based on established facts, the imputations against JAL are not actionable. Therefore, JAL may not claim damages for them. FERMIN VS PEOPLE GR 157643 (MARCH 28,2008) FACTS: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, of the Decision dated September 3, 2002 and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals entitled "People of the Philippines v. Cristenelli S. Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas." On complaint of spouses Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo (Eddie) Gutierrez, two (2) criminal informations for libel were filed against Cristinelli S. Fermin and Bogs C. Tugas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 218.the informations read That on or about the 14th day of June, 1995 in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused FERMIN, publisher, and BOGS C. TUGAS, Editor-in-Chief of Gossip Tabloid,conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, publicly and acting with malice, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously print and circulate in the headline and lead story of the said GOSSIP TABLOID issue of June 14, 1995. ISSUE: What are the standards to be adopted on those in entertainment business, media and intrigue columns? RULING: We must however take this opportunity to likewise remind media practitioners of the high ethical standards attached to and demanded by their noble profession. The danger of an unbridled irrational exercise of the right of free speech and press, that is, in utter contempt of the rights of others and in willful disregard of the cumbrous responsibilities inherent in it, is the eventual self-destruction of the right and the regression of human society into a veritable Hobbesian state of nature where life is short, nasty and brutish. Therefore, to recognize that there can be no absolute "unrestraint" in speech is to truly comprehend the quintessence of freedom in the marketplace of social thought and action, genuine freedom being that which is limned by the freedom of others. It is in this sense that self-regulation as distinguished from self-censorship becomes the ideal mean for, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has warned, "[W]ithout x x x a lively sense of responsibility, a free press may readily become a powerful instrument of injustice. Lest we be misconstrued, this is not to diminish nor constrict that space in which expression freely flourishes and operates. For we have always strongly maintained, as we do now, that freedom of expression is mans birthright constitutionally protected and guaranteed, and that it has become the singular role of the press to act as its "defensor fidei" in a democratic society such as ours. But it is also worth keeping in mind that the press is the servant, not the master, of the citizenry, and its freedom does not carry with it an unrestricted hunting license to prey on the ordinary citizen. TULFO VS PEOPLE GR 161032 (Sept. 16,2008) FACTS: Tulfo brought this petition docketed as G.R. No. 161032, seeking to reverse the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 25318 which affirmed the decision of the RTC. Petitioners Cambri, Salao, Barlizo, and Pichay brought a similar petition docketed as G.R. No. 161176, seeking the nullification of the same CA decision. In a Resolution dated March 15, 2004, the two cases were consolidated since both cases arise from the same set of facts, involve the same parties, assail the same decision of the CA, and seek identical reliefs. The facts herein follows: That on or about 19th day of May, 1999 in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, being then the columnist, publisher and managing editor, respectively of "REMATE", a tabloid published daily and of general circulation in the Philippines, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malicious intent to discredit or dishonor complainant, ATTY. CARLOS "DING" SO, and with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said complainant to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said publication on May 19, 1999, in daily column "DIRECT HIT". ISSUE: Were Tulfo's commentaries fair and reasonable? RULING: The articles clearly are not the fair and true reports contemplated by the provision. They provide no details of the acts committed by the subject, Atty. So. They are plain and simple baseless accusations, backed up by the word of one unnamed source. Good faith is lacking, as Tulfo failed to substantiate or even attempt to verify his story before publication. Tulfo goes even further to attack the character of the subject, Atty. So, even calling him a disgrace to his religion and the legal profession. As none of the elements of the second paragraph of Art. 354 of the RPC is present in Tulfos articles, it cannot thus be argued that they are qualified privileged communications under the RPC. Breaking down the provision further, looking at the terms "fair" and "true," Tulfos articles do not meet the standard. "Fair" is defined as "having the qualities of impartiality and honesty." "True" is defined as "conformable to fact; correct; exact; actual; genuine; honest." Tulfo failed to satisfy these requirements, as he did not do research before making his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not "fair and true reports," but merely wild accusations.