11- FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., v.

AGO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL

CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, (AMEC-BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO

Corporation – Liability for Moral Damages

Facts: "Exposé" is a radio documentary program hosted by Rima and Alegre ("Alegre"). Exposé is
aired over DZRC-AM which is owned by Filipinas Broasting Network, Inc. ("FBNI")
A complaint was filed on the supposed exposés against FBNI, Rima and Alegre regarding the
malicious imputations of AMEC and Ago reputation." AMEC and Ago included FBNI as defendant for
allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees,
particularly Rima and Alegre.
Alegre made the following statement that the school had no permit and is not accredited to offer
Physical Therapy courses, that the school was getting tremendous aids from foreign foundations,
that when medical students fail in one subject, they are made to repeat all the other subject[s], even
those they have already passed, nor their claim that the school charges laboratory fees even if there
are no laboratories in the school. That the school is the dumping ground for misfits, and immoral
teachers
TC found FBNI and Alegre liable for libel except Rima. The trial court held that the broadcasts are
libelous per se. That FBNI failed to exercise diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees. CA upheld the trial court's ruling. FBNI, Rima and Alegre failed to overcome the legal
presumption of malice.
FBNI contends that the broasts "fall within the coverage of qualifiedly privileged communications"
for being commentaries on matters of public interest. Such being the case, AMEC should prove
malice in fact or actual malice. Since AMEC allegedly failed to prove actual malice, there is no libel.
FBNI contends that AMEC is not entitled to moral damages because it is a corporation.
Issue: W/N AMEC is entitled to moral damages considering it is a corporation. – YES, solidarily
liable
Ruling: A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a
natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded
feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. Exceptions: When claim for moral
damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the
recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article
2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical
person such as a corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and
claim for moral damages.
Where the broast is libelous per se, the law implies damages. Evidence of an honest mistake or the
want of character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of damages. Neither in
such a case is the plaintiff required to introduce evidence of actual damages as a condition
precedent to the recovery of some damages. In this case, the broasts are libelous per se. Thus, AMEC
is entitled to moral damages.
The basis of the present action is a tort. Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort
which they commit. Joint tort feasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve
of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.