CONSTI II TOPIC: ​Privileged Communication

G.R. NO. 135306

MVRS Publications vs. Islamic Dawah DATE OF PROMULGATION​: ​28 January
Council 2003
PONENTE: Justice Quisumbing
FACTS:

Respondent Islamic Da’wah filed a claim for damages against Petitioner MVRS
Publication, Inc. due to an article published by the petitioner which constitute a libelous
statement which is insulting or damaging to the Muslims, stating that the pig was the God of
the Muslims. Respondent Islamic Da’wah alleged that the articles was published out of sheer
ignorance as well as with the intent to hurt the feelings, cast insult and disparage the Muslim
and Islam, as a religionin this country, in violation of the law, public policy, good morals, and
human relations. On the other hand, Petitioner MVRS contended that the article did not
mention Respondents Islamic Da’wah as the object of the article and therefore not entitled for
damages. Likewise they contended that the said article was merely an expression of belief or
opinion and was published without malice nor intention to cause damage, prejudice or injury
to Muslims.

ISSUE/S

W/N the said article published by Petitioner MVRS constitutes as an insult to the Muslim community

RULING

NO. The SC granted the petition filed by Petitioner MVRS.

Defamation means the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through
false and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputations or to diminish the
esteem,respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or
opinions about the plaintiff. It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name
or reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. Defamation is an invasion of a
relational interest since it involves the opinion which others may have, or tend to have, of the
plaintiffs.

It must be stressed that the words which are merely insulting are not actionable as liber or
slander per se and mere words of general abuse. however, opprobrious, ill-natured or
vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in
the absence of an allegation for special damages. the fact that the language is offensive to
the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.

Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an

identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a
particular member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without impairing
the equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press, under the
Bill of Rights.

In the present case, there was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the
bulgar article. Since the persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, Respondents
Islamic Da ‘wah has no cause of action, hence, they cannot sue for a class allegedly
disparaged.Respondents must have a cause of action in common with the class to which they
belong to inorder for the case to prosper.

DOCTRINE

...where defamation is alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it is essential that the
statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to every individual in that group
or class, or sufficiently specific so that each individual in the class or group can prove that the
defamatory statement specifically pointed to him. so that he can bring the action separately if
need be...

WHEREFORE,The petition is GRANTED.