Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alfonso Case 1
Alfonso Case 1
184315
Petitioner,
Present:
CORONA, J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
THE MANILA CHRONICLE NACHURA, and
PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PERALTA, JJ.
ROBERTO COYIUTO, JR.,
NOEL CABRERA, GERRY
ZARAGOZA, DONNA Promulgated:
GATDULA, RODNEY P.
DIOLA, RAUL VALINO and
THELMA SAN JUAN, November 25, 2009
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
When malice in fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous articles
are qualifiedly privileged communications are futile, since being qualifiedly
privileged communications merely prevents the presumption of malice from
attaching in a defamatory imputation.
The plaintiff claims that the said articles further branded him as a mere
front or dummy for the Marcos and Romualdez clans in Benguet Corporation,
which company sought to take-over the management of Oriental Petroleum
Mineral Corporation (Oriental for brevity). He contends that such an imputation is
untrue since his holdings in Benguet Corporation were legally acquired by him.
Also, the plaintiff claims that the subject articles insinuated that he
induced others to disobey lawful orders of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC for brevity) when the truth is that the officials of RCBC and
Alcorn never defied any SEC order, and that if ever they did, he never induced
them to do so.
Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the subject articles imputed to him the
derogatory tag of corporate raider, implying that he was seeking to profit for
something he did not work for. He denies the imputation since he acquired his
stake in Oriental for adequate and valuable consideration at the time when no one
was willing to bailout the government from its difficult and losing position
thereto.
In their Answer, the defendants deny liability claiming that the subject
articles were not defamatory since they were composed and published in good
faith and only after having ascertained their contents. In any event, they claim that
these articles are privileged and/or constitute reasonable and balance[d] comments
on matters of legitimate public interest which cannot serve as basis for the finding
of libel against them. They likewise alleged that they were acting within the
bounds of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press.
PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE
Regarding the November 12, 1993 issue of the Manila Chronicle (Exh. B),
he denied having any partnership with the Marcos family; that he denied
responsibility for the losses incurred by Benguet Corporation, as the losses were
due to the drop of the commodity market, and for having diversified into other
non-profitable ventures; that he had no intention whatsoever of taking over
Oriental; that although the Yuchengco family owns a substantial block of shares
of RCBC, Sanwa Bank actually owns twenty-five percent (25%) thereof; that
RCBC did not finance his fund but it extended a loan to Piedras Petroleum, a
subsidiary of the Presidential Commission of Good Government (PCGG for
brevity); admitted that Traders Royal Bank also granted a loan to PCGG but such
was an independent transaction of RCBC.
About the November 15, 1993 issue of the Manila Chronicle (Exh. C), he
denied any knowledge of what transpired at the Trust Department of RCBC
because as Chairman he was not involved in many of the banks transactions.
Referring to November 16, 1993 issue of the Manila Chronicle (Exh. D),
he considered the attacks against him to be malicious considering that he does not
see any connection between the labor strike at Grepalife with the case of Alcorn
and RCBC; that the article would like to show that he was the reason for the huge
losses incurred by Benguet Corporation.
As regards the November 22, 1993 issue of the Manila Chronicle (Exh. E),
he denied giving any interest free loan, the fact that they gave a loan to PCGG
does not mean that they gave a loan to Benedicto since the latter had already
turned over the shares of Piedras to PCGG at that time.
Regarding the November 23, 1993 issue of the Manila Chronicle (Exh. F),
he denied extending an interest free loan considering that he is not the only owner
of RCBC; that these series of attacks against him and RCBC were intended to
cause a bank run; that the article imputes that he was responsible for giving an
interest free loan.
About the December 5, 1993 issue of the Manila Chronicle (Exh. G), he
said the article was intended to humiliate and embarrass him since he really had
no intention of taking over Oriental; that the reason for the attack against his
person was because he and defendant Coyiuto, Jr. were both rivals in the
insurance business and that the latter has always been envious of his position for
having owned Malayan Insurance Company.
JOSE REVILLA testified that he and Amb. Yuchengco were long time
friends, where he (Revilla) worked for him (Yuchengco) for thirty-two (32) years
in his (Yuchengco) credit card company Industrial Finance Corporation Credit
Cards; that knowing Amb. Yuchengco for a considerable period of time, he does
not believe the truth of the contents of the subject articles; that plaintiff
Yuchengco appeared distressed when he joked about the subject articles; that
other people approached him to ask whether the subject articles are true [TSN 25
August 1997].
xxxx
DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE
NOEL CABRERA contended that after having gone through the subject
articles, he believes that the news stories and commentaries were fair and that
those who wrote the same followed the proper standards; that as regard the
contents of Exhibits E and F, the opinion of Mr. Raul Valino, as written in the said
articles, were valid and based on documentary facts; as to Exhibit D, pertaining to
the article of Ms. Donnabelle Gatdula, she based her article on documents
pertaining to the Oriental transaction, other documents, as well as interviews; that
at the time the subject articles were written, Amb. Yuchengco was a public figure,
being a very prominent businessman with vast interest in banks and other
businesses; that during the year 1993, the word crony was more or less accepted
to mean as a big businessman or close associate of the late President Marcos, and
its use in the column was meant only to supply the perspective as to the figure or
subject involved in the news story, and there is thus no malice or derogatory intent
when the same was used.
RAUL VALINO stated that he was the Acting Business Manager and later
Managing Editor and Business Editor-in-Chief of Manila Chronicle; that after
having consulted several dictionaries as to the meaning of the word crony, he did
not come across a definition describing the word to mean someone who is a
recipient of any undeserving or special favor from anyone, that it merely refers to
someone who is a friend or a special friend; there was no mention whatsoever in
the subject article that Amb. Yuchengco was being accused of fronting for the late
President Marcos (referring to par. 2.3.2 of the complaint); that nowhere in the
said paragraph was Amb. Yuchengco accused of having acted as a front to
facilitate the acquisition of a prohibited interest in a private corporation by a
public official while occupying a public office; that nowhere in the article was
Amb. Yuchengco accused of being directly or indirectly involved in unsound
business practices (referring to par. 2.4 of the complaint); that whatever
imputation of ill-will in par. 2.4.1 of the complaint was only in plaintiffs mind;
and as regards par. 2.6 of the complaint, that he was merely reporting on what
transpired at the picket line and what the striking employees answered to him; and
that he did not state in his columns (Exhibits E and F) that plaintiff Yuchengco
violated banking laws. [TSN 23 February 2000][3]
Libel is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:
Based on this definition, this Court has held that four elements constitute the
crime of libel, namely (a) defamatory imputation tending to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt; (b) malice, either in law or in fact; (c) publication; and (d)
identifiability of the person defamed.[7]
Despite being defined in the Revised Penal Code, libel can also be instituted,
like in the case at bar, as a purely civil action, the cause of action for which is
provided by Article 33 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Of these four elements, the most apparent in the case at bar would be the
publication of the alleged imputation. Libel is published not only when it is widely
circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or notice of
another person other than its author and the offended party. [9] The circulation of an
allegedly libelous matter in a newspaper is certainly sufficient publication. We are
thus left with the determination of the existence of the three remaining elements of
libel, namely: (1) the defamatory imputation; (2) the identity of the person
defamed; and (3) the existence of malice.
Defamatory Imputation
Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring
a person's character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It
is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish esteem, respect, goodwill or
confidence in the plaintiff, or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the
plaintiff. It is the publication of anything that is injurious to the good name or
reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. [10] In determining
whether certain utterances are defamatory, the words used are to be construed in
their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning, as they would
naturally be understood by persons hearing (or reading, as in libel) them, unless it
appears that they were used and understood in another sense.[11]
Kokoys two sons, Benjamin Philip Gomez Romualdez, 32, and Ferdinand
Martin G. Romualdez, 29, are now members of the board of the debt-ridden and
heavily losing Benguet Corp., a company taken over by Marcos during his
dictatorship, but which was sequestered at the start of President Aquinos term.
xxxx
xxxx
The official said the case was recently brought to Bangko Sentrals
attention by an RCBC creditor who felt he was being cheated by the bank through
interest-free loans granted to related interests.
Under the interest-free loan scheme, Yuchengco was able to own OMPC
shares of Piedras since they were the same shares RCBC financed and which were
turned over to the bank as payment for the loan.
The Central Bank official said that Bangko Sentral is now determining
whether RCBC violated the rule on loans to directors, officers, stockholders and
related interests (DOSRI).
xxxx
If Bangko Sentral does not act decisively on this matter, the official asked
what will prevent the other banks from resorting to this kind of transactions to
enrich their owners and enable them to acquire shares of stock from other
companies?
xxxx
The deal could be from one crony to another since Yuchengco is very
much associated with the Marcoses and the Romualdezes, a source opined.
Already, it was noted the Oriental shares sold on the stock market are
weakening, and stock observers say this could be attributed to the planned entry
into the company of Yuchengco, Leonardo Siguion-Reyna and their minority
partners.
xxxx
xxxx
SEC insiders said that while Monreal and Ricalde should be punished for
disobeying a lawful order from the SEC, people who masterminded the APMC
order should also be penalized once proven guilty.
xxxx
Some observers said the APMC order to RCBC could be a ploy to prevent
Robert Coyiuto, Jr., chairman and president of OPMC, from retaining his majority
control of Oriental, and a scheme to put on the board members of the Yuchengco
company.
In fact, when Yuchengco created his own OPMC board of directors, he
appointed Ricalde as corporate secretary, OPMC officials pointed out.
The Bank runs that devastated the economy in the recent past were, first
and foremost, instigated by rumors that bank owners were, themselves, using the
publics money to promote their own businesses and interests in violation of
Central Bank rules and regulations.
xxxx
xxxx
What would happen if all the other banks resort to this kind of lending
activity, giving away loans without interest? The entire banking system would
certainly be compromised.
The owners or RCBC, therefore, should not be too liberal with their
depositors money. They should also consider what fatal effects such a practice
could inflict on the very system where RCBC operates. The country, at this time,
cannot afford another series of bank runs, nor a run at RCBC.
xxxx
The P101 million interest-free loan to Piedras is of national interest for not
just one reason alone.
First, the money involved came from the depositors, and not from the
pockets of Yuchengco.
Second, banking rules dictate that a bank must be prudent in lending out
its clients money, so that its financial viability must never be put in question.
Third, the money lent to a borrower must never end up in the pocket of the
owner of the bank.
Fourth, such a practice could lead to a bank run, which the economy
cannot afford at this time, even if the run is confined to just one bank.
Ledesma says Coyiuto will not wilt from Yuchengcos fabled financial
power. Robert has a lot of friends that will help him fend off a raider like
Yuchengco, says Ledesma.
xxxx
Ledesma of OPMC says that even if Coyiuto loses in the bid, hell still
remain a very significant player in OPMC given his substantial personal holdings
and proxies in the company.Coyiutos investment in OPMC is now valued at more
than a billion pesos compared to the Yuchengco block which, the Coyiuto group
points out, has only minimal investments.
Thats our moral ascendancy over their group. Coyiuto virtually made
Oriental what it is today unlike Yuchengco who is just getting into the act now
because Oriental has become an attractive cash cow says Ledesma.
War of Families
The trial court and the Court of Appeals are in agreement that the above
articles contain defamatory imputations. Even the Amended Decision of the Court
of Appeals, wherein the appellate court reversed itself and held that respondents
were not liable for damages, did not modify its earlier ruling affirming the
defamatory character of the imputations in the above articles. The Court of Appeals
merely reversed itself on account of the allegedly privileged nature of the articles,
which goes into the element of malice.Malice, as an element of libel, and the
defenses affecting the existence of the same shall be discussed later.
In arguing that the subject articles are not really derogatory, respondent
Cabrera explains that the word crony was more or less accepted to describe a big
businessman or close associate of the late President Marcos, and its use in the
column was meant only to supply the perspective as to the figure or subject
involved in the news story. Respondent Valino further claimed that after consulting
several dictionaries as to the meaning of the word crony, he did not come across a
definition describing the word to mean someone who is a recipient of any
undeserving or special favor from anyone.
Even a cursory reading of the subject articles would show the intention of
the writers to injure the reputation, credit and virtue of Yuchengco and expose him
to public hatred, discredit, contempt and ridicule. The indirect manner in which the
articles attributed the insults to Yuchengco (e.g., the money involved came from
depositors, and not from Yuchengco) does not lessen the culpability of the writers
and publishers thereof, but instead makes the defamatory imputations even more
effective. Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to
destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical
language is a favored vehicle for slander.[21]
In sum, this Court upholds the ruling of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals that the subject articles contain defamatory imputations. All of the
following imputations: (1) the labeling of Yuchengco as a Marcos crony, who took
advantage of his relationship with the former President to gain unwarranted
benefits; (2) the insinuations that Yuchengco induced others to disobey the lawful
orders of SEC; (3) the portrayal of Yuchengco as an unfair and uncaring employer
due to the strike staged by the employees of Grepalife; (4) the accusation that he
induced RCBC to violate the provisions of the General Banking Act on DOSRI
loans; and (5) the tagging of Yuchengco as a corporate raider seeking to profit from
something he did not work for, all exposed Yuchengco to public contempt and
ridicule, for they imputed to him a condition that was dishonorable.
Identification
In the case at bar, all but one of the subject articles explicitly mention the
name of petitioner Yuchengco. The lone article, which does not mention
Yuchengco at all, Bank runs & RCBC free loans, [24] nevertheless chided the owners
of RCBC:
The owners or RCBC, therefore, should not be too liberal with their
depositors money. They should also consider what fatal effects such a practice
could inflict on the very system where RCBC operates. The country, at this time,
cannot afford another series of bank runs, nor a run at RCBC.[25]
Malice
Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but
merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to
do ulterior and unjustifiable harm.[28] It is present when it is shown that the author
of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or
with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof.[29]
Malice, however, does not necessarily have to be proven. There are two
types of malice malice in law and malice in fact. [30] Malice in law is a presumption
of law. It dispenses with the proof of malice when words that raise the presumption
are shown to have been uttered. It is also known as constructive malice, legal
malice, or implied malice.[31] On the other hand, malice in fact is a positive desire
and intention to annoy and injure. It may denote that the defendant was actuated by
ill will or personal spite. It is also called express malice, actual malice, real malice,
true malice, or particular malice.[32]
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of
their functions.
In the case at bar, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the
publication of the subject articles was attended by actual malice:
As correctly found by the trial court, [petitioner] was able to show that
[respondents] were animated by a desire to inflict unjustifiable harm on his
reputation as shown by the timing and frequency of the publication of the
defamatory articles. Further, as previously stated, [respondents] failed to show
that they had any good intention and justifiable motive for composing and
publishing the vicious and malicious accusations against [petitioner].
As earlier explained, as correctly found by the trial court, even the timing
of the publication of these subject articles is highly suspicious inasmuch as
the subject libelous articles came out in the Manila Chronicle, a newspaper
owned and under the control of [respondent] Coyiuto, around November to
December of 1993, a couple of months prior to the January stockholders
meeting of Oriental Corporation. From this, it is logical to conclude that the
publication of the subject defamatory articles defaming the good name and
reputation of [petitioner] is but a part of [a] grand scheme to create a negative
image of [petitioner] so as to negatively affect [petitioners] credibility to the
public, more particularly, to the then stockholders of Oriental Corporation. Worth
noting also is the fact that the subject articles did not only portray [petitioner] in a
bad light. Curiously, in these articles, [respondent] Coyiuto, a known rival of
[petitioner], was portrayed as the underdog, the David and [petitioner] as the
Goliath in their battle for control over Oriental Corporation. This does not
escape the Courts attention.
When the Court of Appeals granted the Motion for Reconsideration, it did
not touch upon its earlier finding of actual malice on the part of respondents in
publishing the subject articles. Instead, the Court of Appeals merely held that the
subject articles were fair commentaries on matters of public interest, and thus fell
within the scope of the third type of qualifiedly privileged communications.
This was a glaring error on the part of the Court of Appeals. As discussed
above, whereas there is an absolute bar to an action in the case of absolutely
privileged communication, the same is not true with respect to qualifiedly
privileged communication, wherein the law merely raises a prima
facie presumption in favor of the occasion. In the former, the freedom from
liability is absolute, regardless of the existence of actual malice, as contrasted with
the freedom in the latter, where it is conditioned on the want or absence of actual
malice. Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are actionable
when made with actual malice.[36]
When malice in fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous articles
are qualifiedly privileged communications are futile, since being qualifiedly
privileged communications merely prevents the presumption of malice from
attaching to a defamatory imputation.
Neither is there any reason for this Court to reverse the findings of the trial
court and the Court of Appeals that there was actual malice on the part of the
respondents. As held by the courts a quo, Yuchengco was able to show by the
attendant circumstances that respondents were animated by a desire to inflict
unjustifiable harm on his reputation, as shown by the timing and frequency of the
publication of the defamatory articles. The portrayal of then Chronicle Publishing
Chairman Coyiuto as an underdog and his rival Yuchengco as the greedy Goliath in
their battle for control over Oriental Corporation, taken with the timing of the
publication of these subject articles a couple of months prior to the January
stockholders meeting of Oriental Corporation, clearly indicate that the articles
constituted an orchestrated attack to undermine the reputation of
Yuchengco.Furthermore, respondents were shown to have acted with reckless
disregard as to the truth or falsity of the articles they published, when they were
unable to rebut the categorical denial by Yuchengco of the accusations made
against him, and his allegation that he was not approached by respondents for his
side of the stories before the publication thereof.Respondents failure to present
evidence showing that they verified the truth of any of the subject articles is fatal to
their cause. In In re: Emil P. Jurado,[37] this Court ruled that categorical denials of
the truth of allegations in a publication place the burden upon the party
publishing it, either of proving the truth of the imputations or of showing that
the same was an honest mistake or error committed despite good efforts to
arrive at the truth. There is actual malice when there is either (1) knowledge of
the publications falsity; or (2) reckless disregard of whether the contents of the
publication were false or not.[38] Failure to even get the side of Yuchengco in the
published articles clearly constituted reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of
said articles.
Finally, even if we assume for the sake of argument that actual malice was
not proven in the case at bar, we nevertheless cannot adhere to the finding of the
Court of Appeals in the Amended Decision that the subject articles were fair
commentaries on matters of public interest, and thus fell within the scope of the
third type of qualifiedly privileged communications.
More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the
forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the
resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and
comment. Third, this would impose an additional difficulty on trial court judges
to decide which publications address issues of general interest and which do not.
Even if the foregoing generalities do not obtain in every instance, the
communications media are entitled to act on the assumption that public officials
and public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury
from defamatory falsehood concerning them. No such assumption is justified with
respect to a private individual. He has not accepted public office or assumed an
influential role in ordering society. (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S., at
164) He has relinquished no part of his interest in the protection of his own good
name, and consequently he has a more compelling call on the courts for redress of
injury inflicted by defamatory falsehood. Thus, private individuals are not only
more vulnerable to injury than public officials and public figures; they are also
more deserving of recovery.[43] (Emphasis supplied.)
The records in the case at bar do not disclose any instance wherein
Yuchengco had voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront of particular public
controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. He cannot,
therefore, be considered a public figure. Since Yuchengco, the person defamed in
the subject articles, is neither as public officer nor a public figure, said articles
cannot be considered as qualifiedly privileged communications even if they deal
with matters of public concern.
2. The damages for which Roberto Coyuito, Jr. and Chronicle Publishing
shall be jointly and severally liable under the second cause of action shall be
reduced as follows:
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Japar B.
Dimaampao, concurring; rollo, pp. 53-62.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Lucenito N.
Tagle, concurring; rollo, pp. 195-248.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 114-121.
[4]
Id. at 160.
[5]
Id. at 247.
[6]
Id. at 348-349.
[7]
People v. Monton, 116 Phil. 1116, 1120-1121 (1962).
[8]
G.R. No. 146848, 17 October 2006, 504 SCRA 638, 650-651.
[9]
United States v. Ubiana, 1 Phil. 471, 473 (1902).
[10]
MVRS Publications, Inc., v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., 444 Phil. 230, 241 (2004).
[11]
Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-74907, 23 May 1988, 161 SCRA 427, 432.
[12]
Manila Chronicle, 10 November 1993, Exhibit A; rollo, p. 63.
[13]
Manila Chronicle, 12 November 1993, Exhibit B; rollo, p. 64.
[14]
Manila Chronicle, 12 November 1993, Exhibit D; rollo, p. 66.
[15]
Manila Chronicle, 22 November 1993, Exhibit E; rollo, p. 67.
[16]
Manila Chronicle, 23 November 1993, Exhibit F; rollo, p. 68.
[17]
Manila Chronicle, 23 November 1993, Exhibit G, rollo, p. 69.
[18]
Madrona, Sr. v. Rosal, G.R. No. 39120, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 1, 8.
[19]
38 Phil. 666, 672-673 (1918).
[20]
Rollo, p. 63.
[21]
United States v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767, 773 (1918).
[22]
Corpus v. Cuaderno, Sr., G.R. No. L-16969, 30 April 1966, 16 SCRA 807, 816.
[23]
Quisumbing v. Lopez, 96 Phil. 510, 513 (1955).
[24]
Exhibit D; rollo, p. 67.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Exhibit A; rollo, p. 63.
[27]
MVRS Publications, Inc., v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., supra note 10.
[28]
United States v. Caete, 38 Phil. 253, 264 (1918).
[29]
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 238, 254 (1999).
[30]
Lawson v. Hicks, 38, Ala. 279.
[31]
Leonardo P. Reyes, FUNDAMENTALS OF LIBEL LAW, p. 15 (2007), citing William v. Hicks Printing Co., 150
N.W. 183, 159 Wis. 90, Ajouelo v. Auto-Soler Co., 6 S.E.2d 415, 61 Ga App. 216, Astruc v. Star Co.,
C.C.N.Y. 182 F. 705.
[32]
Id., citing Cook v. East Shore Newspapers, 327 Ill. App. 559, 64 N.E.2d 751; Freeman v. Mills, 97 Cal. App.2d
161, 217 P.2d 687; Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar, 177 So. 766, 18 Miss. 486; Davis v. Hearst, 116
P. 530, 160 Cal. 143; Id.; Swain v. Oakey, 129 S.E. 151, 190 N.C. 133.
[33]
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 1, 19 (1999).
[34]
Orfanel v. People, 141 Phil. 519, 523-524 (1969).
[35]
Rollo, pp. 234-236.
[36]
Orfanel v. People, supra note 34.
[37]
313 Phil. 119, 169 (1995).
[38]
Villanueva v. Philippine Daily Inquirer, G.R. No. 164437, 15 May 2009.
[39]
G.R. No. 143372, 13 December 2005, 477 SCRA 482.
[40]
418 U.S. 323 (1974).
[41]
Rollo, p. 55.
[42]
1. Presidential Adviser on Foreign Affairs with Cabinet Rank (January 30, 2004-present)
2. Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador (November 2001-
December 2002);
3. Presidential Special Envoy to China, Japan and Korea (2001);
4. Presidential Assistant on APEC Matters with Cabinet Rank (1998-2000);
5. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of the Philippines to the Peoples Republic
of China (PROC) (1986-1988); and
6. Chairman, Council of Private Sector Advisors to the Philippine Government on the Spratlys Issue (Marine and
Archipelagic Development Policy Group (1995-1998). (Rollo, p. 56.)
[43]
Philippine Journalists, Inc. (Peoples Journal) v. Theonen, supra note 38 at 497.