Bonifacio vs.
RTC of Makati The criminal action and civil action for damages
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, ww
w.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
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.
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.