Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
255
EN BANC.
256
256
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014d367209e6605e8e5d000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK201/?username=Guest
1/14
5/9/2015
in
behalf
of
the
Remedial Law; Libel; Venue; The filing of the case in the RTC
of Marawi City did not result in any procedural infirmity since the
record of the case shows that nine of the twenty-one complainants
were residents of Marawi City at the time of publication of the
alleged libelous article.The law specifically designates as proper
venue in criminal and civil actions for libel the Regional Trial
Court of the province or city "where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense;"
upon the other hand, the record of this case shows that at the
time the allegedly libelous Panorama article was published, nine
(9) of the twenty-one (21) complainants (private respondents)
were then residents of Marawi City. Filing of the complaint (Civil
Case No. 81-86) with the Marawi Regional Trial Court thus did
not result in any procedural infirmity as would vitiate the
proceedings undertaken there. Petitioners' argument that venue
was improperly laid simply because the twelve (12) other
complainants were non-residents of Marawi at the time of
publication is, therefore, without merit. It is to the benefit of
petitioners that the twelve (12) non-residents of Marawi chose to
go along with the suit in Marawi instead of commencing a
separate suit elsewhere. The Court is not, however, to be
understood as saying that the 21 complainants, if resident in 21
different places, could have sued in 21 differing courts and still
claim that venue had been properly laid in each instance. Such a
situation may well indicate a pattern of harassment of the
defendant newspaper which could justify intervention on the part
of this Court to avoid a potential paralysing effect upon the
exercise of press freedom.
Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Criminal Law; Libel; No libel
has been committed in the instant case because the published work
alleged to contain libelous statements appears simply expository in
character, matter-of-fact, and unemotional in tone and tenor,
without any evidence of malevolent intent, either on the part of the
author or the publisher of the article.Coming now to the
principal issue of whether or not the complaint states a valid
cause of action, the Court finds that libel has not here been
committed; the civil suit for damages must fail. It is axiomatic in
actions for damages for libel that the published work alleged to
contain libelous material must be examined and viewed as a
whole. We have accordingly examined in its entirety the subject
article "A Changing of the Guard" which is in essence a popular
essay on the general nature and character of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014d367209e6605e8e5d000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK201/?username=Guest
2/14
5/9/2015
257
257
3/14
5/9/2015
258
4/14
5/9/2015
259
5/14
5/9/2015
Id., p. 35-B.
260
260
6/14
5/9/2015
Id., p. 69.
261
261
7/14
5/9/2015
262
8/14
5/9/2015
263
9/14
5/9/2015
Id., p. 32.
granting a title of nobility shall be enacted x x x." This was later amended
by Sec. 10, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution, now Sec. 31, Art. VI of the
1987 Constitution, to read: "No law granting a title of royalty or nobility
shall be enacted."
264
264
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014d367209e6605e8e5d000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK201/?username=Guest
10/14
5/9/2015
11
12
13
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014d367209e6605e8e5d000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK201/?username=Guest
11/14
5/9/2015
265
265
12/14
5/9/2015
15
See: Weiman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, (1952); New York Times Co.
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (1964); Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, (1967).
See also: The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law, 69 Columbia L. Rev.
808, (1969).
266
266
13/14
5/9/2015
_________________
16
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014d367209e6605e8e5d000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK201/?username=Guest
14/14