Case Digest: Bonifacio et al.

, vs RTC Makati and Jessie John Gimenez GR No 184800

GR No 184800 May 5, 2010

Facts:
Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed in behalf of Yuchenco Family of Yuchenco Group of
Companies (YGC) and Malayan Insurance Co., (Malayan), a criminal complain for 13 counts of
libel under Art. 355 in relation to Art. 353 of the RPC against the members of Paents Enabling
Parents Coalition Inc (PEPCI), a group of discontented planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc (PPI)
which is owned by the Yuchengco’s, for they previously purchased traditional pre-need
educational plans but were unable to collect thereon or avail of the benefits of such after PPI, due
to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer of suspension of payments.

That PEPCI members owns and moderates a website and a blog with web domains:
www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, www.pepcoalition.com, and no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com.
Gimenez alleged that upon accessing such websites in Makati he red various article containing
highly derogatory statements and false accusations attacking the Yuchengco Family.

Since the article was first published and accessed by Gimenez at Makati City, pursuant to Art.
360 of the RPC as amended by RA 4363.

Issue:
How should an online article be treated in relation to a written defamation/libel with respect to
jurisdiction of the case provided by law specifically Art. 360 of the RPC?

Ruling:
Art. 360 of the RPC provides:

“Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation
in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
xxxx
The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for
in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC of the province or city
where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the commission of the oofense. xxxx”

That venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited only to:

1. Where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or
2. Where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.

Page 1 of 2
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published was used as basis for
the venue of the action, the Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory
article was printed and first published. The same measures cannot be reasonably expected when
it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no
way of determining the point of its printing and first publication. TO give credence to Gimenez’s
argument would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to
discourage and prevent. It would do chaos wherein website author, writer, blogger or anyone
who post messages in websites could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines.

The information is quashed and the case is dismissed.

Page 2 of 2