Fernando

TRILLANES v. PIMENTEL
Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J.
Date: June 27, 2008
This is an ordinary civil action for damages.
RECIT READY:
On Nov 14, 1958 Rep. Cabangbang caused the publication of an open letter to the
president to several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. The said letter was
about the 3 operational plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid
of some civilian political strategists. (1. Political build up of Sec. of National Defense Jesus
Vargas 2. Coup d’etat 3. Trying to assuage the president and the public with a loyalty parade)
The “planners” allegedly have Col. Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise and that
Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet such an end.
In lieu with the claimed libelous publication, the petitioners filed for sums of money, by
way of damages. The respondent filed for motion to dismiss on the grounds that the letter is a
privileged communication and it is not libelous. The CFI of Rizal granted the motion to dismiss
was granted and hence, this petition.
The issues now are WON publication in question is a privileged communication.
According to the complaint, it was an open letter to the President of the Philippines, dated
November 14, 1958, when Congress presumably was NOT in session. Thus, when the
publication was published, the respondent was not performing his official duty, either as a
member of Congress or as officer of any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding
made by His Honor, the trial Judge, said communication is not absolutely privileged.
WON the publication in question is libelous. The SC is satisfied that the letter in question
is not sufficient to support Jimenez’ action for damages. Although the letter says that plaintiffs
are under the control of the persons unnamed therein alluded to as “planners”, and that,
having been handpicked by Vargas, it should be noted that defendant, likewise, added that “it is
of course possible” that plaintiffs “are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have
absolutely no knowledge”. In other words, the very document upon which plaintiffs’ action is
based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operational
plans, and that they may be merely unwitting tools of the planners. Thus, the SC does not think
that this statement is derogatory to Jimenez to the point of entitling them to recover damages.

Decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED.

FACTS:
1. Nov 14, 1958- Rep. Cabangbang caused the publication of an open letter to the president to
several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
2. The said letter was about the 3 operational plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP
officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists. (1. Political build up of Sec. of
National Defense Jesus Vargas 2. Coup d’etat 3. Trying to assuage the president and the public
with a loyalty parade)
3. The “planners” allegedly have Col. Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise and that
Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet such an end.
Fernando

4. Thus, in lieu with the claimed libelous publication, the petitioners filed for sums of money, by
way of damages. The respondent filed for motion to dismiss on the grounds that the letter is a
privileged communication and it is not libelous.
5. CFI of Rizal- motion to dismiss was granted and hence, this petition.

HELD/RATIO:
1. WON the publication in question is a privileged communication? – NO
COURT: According to the complaint, it was an open letter to the President of the Philippines,
dated November 14, 1958, when Congress presumably was NOT in session. Thus, when the
publication was published, the respondent was not performing his official duty, either as a
member of Congress or as officer of any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made
by His Honor, the trial Judge, said communication is not absolutely privileged.

2. WON the publication in question is libelous? – NO

COURT: The SC is satisfied that the letter in question is not sufficient to support Jimenez’ action
for damages. Although the letter says that plaintiffs are under the control of the persons unnamed
therein alluded to as “planners”, and that, having been handpicked by Vargas, it should be noted
that defendant, likewise, added that “it is of course possible” that plaintiffs “are unwitting tools
of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge”. In other words, the very
document upon which plaintiffs’ action is based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely
unaware of the alleged operational plans, and that they may be merely unwitting tools of the
planners. Thus, the SC does not think that this statement is derogatory to Jimenez to the point of
entitling them to recover damages.

RULING: Decision of lower court is AFFIRMED.