Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Borjal V CA

    Uploaded by

    Vaughn Jedry Garcia
    72 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there were insufficient grounds to find the petitioners guilty of libel. To maintain a libel suit, the victim must be identifiable by a third party based on the publication, but here only the plaintiff himself could identify that he was the subject of the articles. The articles dealt with matters of public interest regarding a planned conference and the plaintiff was deemed a public figure involved in a public issue, so criticism of him was permissible as long as it was an expression of opinion based on established facts rather than false allegations. Privileged communications that are protective of public opinion and constitute fair commentary on public issues are a valid defense against libel.

    Original Description:

    borjal v CA

    Original Title

    borjal v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that there were insufficient grounds to find the petitioners guilty of libel. To maintain a libel suit, the victim must be identifiable by a third party based on the publication, but here only the plaintiff himself could identify that he was the subject of the articles. The articles dealt with matters of public interest regarding a planned conference and the plaintiff was deemed a public figure involved in a public issue, so criticism of him was permissible as long as it was an expression of opinion based on established facts rather than false allegations. Privileged communications that are protective of public opinion and constitute fair commentary on public issues are a valid defense against libel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    72 views2 pages

    Borjal V CA

    Uploaded by

    Vaughn Jedry Garcia
    The Supreme Court ruled that there were insufficient grounds to find the petitioners guilty of libel. To maintain a libel suit, the victim must be identifiable by a third party based on the publication, but here only the plaintiff himself could identify that he was the subject of the articles. The articles dealt with matters of public interest regarding a planned conference and the plaintiff was deemed a public figure involved in a public issue, so criticism of him was permissible as long as it was an expression of opinion based on established facts rather than false allegations. Privileged communications that are protective of public opinion and constitute fair commentary on public issues are a valid defense against libel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BorjalvCourtofAppeals301SCRA1January14,1999

    Facts: Acivilactionfordamagesbasedonlibelwasfiledbeforethecourt
    againstBorjalandSolivenforwritingandpublishingarticlesthatareallegedly
    derogatoryandoffensiveagainstFranciscoWenceslao,attackingamongothers
    thesolicitationlettershesendtosupportaconferencetobelaunchconcerning
    resolving matters on transportation crisis that is tainted with anomalous
    activitiesinsometimeSeptember1988.Wenceslaohoweverwasnevernamed
    inanyofthearticlesnorwastheconferencehewasorganizing.Thelowercourt
    orderedpetitionerstoindemnifytheprivaterespondentfordamageswhichwas
    affirmedbytheCourtofAppealsbutreducedthemonetaryaward.Apetition
    forreviewwasfiledbeforetheSCcontendingthatprivaterespondentwasnot
    sufficientlyidentifiedtobethesubjectofthepublishedarticles.
    Issue: Whether or not there are sufficient grounds to constitute guilt of
    petitionersforlibel.
    Held: In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be
    identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also not
    sufficientthattheoffendedpartyrecognizedhimselfasthepersonattackedor
    defamed,butitmustbeshownthatatleastathirdpersoncouldidentifyhimas
    theobjectofthelibelouspublication.Theserequisiteshavenotbeencomplied
    withinthecaseatbar.Theelementofidentifiabilitywasnotmetsinceitwas
    Wenceslasowhorevealedhewastheorganizerofsaidconferenceandhadhe
    notdonesothepublicwouldnothaveknown.
    Theconceptofprivilegedcommunicationsisimplicitinthefreedomofthe
    press and that privileged communications must be protective of public
    opinion.Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and
    constituteavaliddefenseinanactionforlibelorslander.Thedoctrineoffair
    comment meansthatwhileingeneraleverydiscreditableimputationpublicly
    madeisdeemedfalse,becauseeverymanispresumedinnocentuntilhisguiltis
    judiciallyproved,andeveryfalseimputationisdeemedmalicious,nevertheless,
    when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his
    publiccapacity,itisnotnecessarilyactionable.Inorderthatsuchdiscreditable
    imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false
    allegationoffactoracommentbasedonafalsesupposition.Ifthecommentis
    anexpressionofopinion,basedonestablishedfacts,thenitisimmaterialthat

    theopinionhappenstobemistaken,aslongasitmightreasonablybeinferred
    fromthefacts.
    The questioned article dealt with matters of public interest as the declared
    objectiveoftheconference,thecompositionofitsmembersandparticipants,
    andthemannerbywhichitwasintendedtobefundednodoubtlendtoits
    activitiesasbeinggenuinelyimbuedwithpublicinterest.Respondentisalso
    deemedtobeapublicfigureandevenotherwiseisinvolvedinapublicissue.
    Thecourtheldthatfreedomofexpressionisconstitutionallyguaranteedand
    protectedwiththereminderamongmediamemberstopracticehighestethical
    standardsintheexercisethereof.

    Aprivilegedcommunicationmaybeeither:
    1.Absolutelyprivilegedcommunication thosewhicharenotactionable
    even ifthe authorhas acted in badfaith. An example is foundinSec. 11,
    Art.VI,ofthe1987ConstitutionwhichexemptsamemberofCongressfrom
    liabilityforanyspeechordebateintheCongressorinanyCommitteethereof.
    2. Qualifiedly privileged communications those containing defamatory
    imputationsarenotactionableunlessfoundtohavebeenmadewithoutgood
    intentionjustifiablemotive.Tothisgenrebelong"privatecommunications"and
    "fairandtruereportwithoutanycommentsorremarks."

    You might also like