Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Time Inc. VS Reyes
Time Inc. VS Reyes
for the libel in the place where the offending article was printed
and first published. Here, the law tolerates the interference with
libeled officer's duties only for the sake of avoiding unnecessary
harassment of the accused Since the offending publication was
not printed in the Philip-
304
VOL. 39, MAY 31, 1971 303
Time, Inc. vs. Reyes
separate publication of a libel contained therein, giving rise to a complaint; and when a motion to dismiss is filed for lack of
separate cause of action. This rule (multiple publication rule) is jurisdiction those allegations are deemed admitted for purposes of
still followed in several American jurisdictions, and seems to be such motion, so that it may be resolved without waiting for the
favored by the American Law Institute. Other jurisdictions have trial. Thus it has been held that the consideration thereof may not
adopted the "single publication rule," which or stated in New York be postponed in the hope that the evidence may yield other
under which any single integrated pub- qualifying or concurring data which would bring the case under
the court's jurisdiction.
305
306
VOL. 39, MAY 31, 1971 305 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Time, Inc. vs. Reyes
Time, Inc. vs. Reyes
suit, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is not bound by the In the aforesaid Civil Case No. 10403, therein plaintiffs
ruling of the court in which the suit was brought, on a motion to (herein respondents) Antonio J. Villegas and Juan Ponce
quash service of summons, that it has jurisdiction.
Same; Certiorari or prohibition in case of denial or deferment _______________
of action on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.—The
action of a court in refusing to rule, or deferring its ruling, on a 1 It informs that Time-Life International is not made a co-petitioner for
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subjectmatter, the reason that it is not a juridical person but a mere division of Time, Inc.
or for improper venue. is in excess of jurisdiction and correctible (Petition, footnote at page 6).
by writ of prohibition or certiorari sued out in the appellate Court, 2 Petitioner alleged that it had offered to stipulate in the court below
even before trial on the merits is had. that its "activities in the Philippines could be considered doing business"
but respondents refused to stipulate (Petition, page 6), although it stated
Same; Jurisdiction of court determined by allegations in the
in its memorandum in lieu of oral argument, that it is "a corporation not
complaint.—It is a settled rule that the jurisdiction of a court over
the subject-matter is determined by the allegations in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
1/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 1/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039
doing business in the Philippines." (Memorandum, dated 31 July 1968, 3 Rollo, page 26.
page 1)
308
307
of Manila and Undersecretary of Finance and concurrently where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense
Acting Commissioner of Customs, respectively, with offices or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in
in the City of Manila. The issues in this case are: case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city
1. Whether or not, under the provisions of Republic where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the
Act No. 4363 the respondent Court of First Instance offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first
of Rizal has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the published; Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in
civil suit for damages arising from an allegedly the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa;
libelous publication, considering that the action was Provided, furthermore; That the court where the criminal action
instituted by public officers whose offices were in or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction
the City of Manila at the time of the publication; if to the exclusion of other courts; And provided finally, That this
it has no jurisdiction, whether or not its erroneous amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the
assumption of jurisdiction may be challenged by a civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the
foreign corporation by writ of certiorari or time of the effectivity of this law.
prohibition; and
2. Whether or not Republic Act 4363 is applicable to 'x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
action against a foreign corporation or non-resident 'x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
defendant.
"Sec. 3. This Act shall take effect only if and when, within
Provisions of Republic Act No. 4363, which are relevant to thirty days from its approval, the newspapermen in the
the resolution of the foregoing issues, read, as follows: Philippines shall organize, and elect the members of, a Philippine
Press Council, a private agency of the said newspapermen, whose
"Section 1. Article three hundred sixty of the Revised Penal Code,
function shall be to promulgate a Code of Ethics for them and the
as amended by Republic Act Numbered Twelve hundred and
Philippine press, investigate violations thereof, and censure any
eighty-nine, is further amended to read as follows:
newspaperman or newspaper guilty of any violation of the said
'ART. 360. Persons responsible.—Any person who shall publish,
Code, and the fact that such Philippine Press Council has been
exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation
organized and its members have been duly elected in accordance
in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
herewith shall be ascertained and proclaimed by the President of
'The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or
the Philippines."
business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained Under the first proviso in section 1, the venue of a civil
therein to the extent as if he were the author thereof. action for damages in cases of written defamations is
'The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written localized upon the basis of, first, whether the offended
defamations as' provided for in this chapter, shall be filed party or plaintiff is a public officer or a private individual;
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the and second, if he is a public officer, whether his office is in
province or city where the libelous article is printed and Manila or not in Manila, at the time, of the commission
310 311
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 39, MAY 31, 1971 311
Time, Inc. vs. Reyes Time, Inc. vs. Reyes
first published or where any of the offended parties actually of the offense. If the offended party is a public officer with
resides at the time of the commission of the offense; Provided, office in the City of Manila, the proviso limits him to two
however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer (2) choices of venue, namely, "in the Court of First Instance
whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the City of Manila or in the city or province where the
of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First libelous article is printed and first published ..."
Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the The complaint lodged in the court of Rizal by
libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such respondents does not allege that the libelous article was
public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action printed and first published in the province of Rizal and,
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city since the respondents-plaintiffs are public officers with.
offices in Manila at the time of the commission of the office in Manila the second option of filing a criminal case
alleged offense, it is clear that the only place left for them in the court of the place where the libelous article is
wherein to file their action is the Court of First Instance of printed and first published if the defendant is a foreign
Manila. corporation and that, under the "single publication" rule
The limitation of the choices of venue, as introduced into which originated in the United States and imported into
the Penal Code through its amendments by Republic Act the Philippines, the rule was understood to mean that
4363, was intended "to minimize or limit the filing of out- publications in another state are not covered by venue
of-town libel suits" to protect an alleged offender from statutes of the forum.
"hardships. inconveniences and harassments" and. The implication of respondents' argument is that the law
furthermore, to protect "the interest of the public service"
4
would not take effect as to non-resident defendants or
where one of the offended parties is a public officer." The accused. We see nothing in the text of the law that would
intent of the law is clear: a libeled public official must sue sustain such unequal protection to some of those who may
in the court of the locality where he holds office, in order be charged with libel. The official proclamation that a
that the prosecution of the action should interfere as little Philippine Press Council has been organized is made a pre-
as possible with the discharge of his official duties and condition to the effectivity of the entire Republic Act No.
labors. The only alternative allowed him by law is to 4363, and no terms are employed therein to indicate that
prosecute those responsible for the libel in the place where the law can or will be effective only as to some, but not all,
the offending article was printed and first published. Here, of those that may be charged with libeling our public
the law tolerates the interference with the libeled officer's officers.
duties only for the sake of avoiding unnecessary The assertion that a foreign corporation or a non-
harassment of the accused. Since the offending publication resident defendant is not inconvenienced by an out-of-town
was not printed in the Philippines, the alternative venue suit
was not open, to respondent Mayor Villegas of Manila and
313
Undersecretary of Finance Enrile, who were the offended
parties.
VOL. 39, MAY 81, 1971 313
_______________ Time, Inc. vs. Reyes
4 Explanatory Note to H.B. 17057 which became Republic Act 4363.
is irrelevant and untenable, for venue and jurisdiction are
312 not dependent upon convenience or inconvenience to a
party; and moreover, venue was fixed under Republic Act
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED No. 4363, pursuant to the basic policy of the law that is, as
previously stated, to protect the interest of the public
Time, Inc. vs. Reyes service when the offended party is a public officer, by
minimizing as much as possible any interference with the
But respondents-plaintiffs argue that Republic Act No. discharge of his duties.
4363 is not applicable where the action is against non- That respondents-plaintiffs could not file a criminal case
resident defendant, as petitioner Time, Inc., for several for libel against a non-resident defendant does not make
reasons. They urge that, in enacting Republic Act No. 4363, Republic Act No. 4363 incongruous of absurd, for such
Congress did not intend to protect non-resident defendants inability to file a criminal case against a non-resident
as shown by Section 3, which provides for the effectivity of natural person equally exists in crimes other than libel. It
the statute only if and when the "newspapermen in the is a fundamental rule of international jurisdiction that no
Philippines" have organized a "Philippine Press Council" state can by its laws, and no court which is only a creature
whose function shall be to promulgate a Code of Ethics for of the state, can by its judgments or decrees, directly bind
"them" and "the Philippine press"; and since a nonresident or affect property or persons beyond the limits of that
5
defendant is not in a position to comply with the conditions state. Not only this, but if the accused is a corporation, no
6
imposed for the effectivity of the statute, such defendant criminal action can lie against it, whether such corporation
may not invoke its provisions; that a foreign corporation is be resident or non-resident. At any rate, the case filed by
not inconvenienced by an out-of-town libel suit; that it respondents-plaintiffs is not a criminal cases but a civil
would be absurd. and incongruous, in the absence of an case for damages,
extradition treaty, for the law to give to public officers with
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
1/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 1/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039
50 Am. Jur. 2d 659 differentiates the "multiple Philippines shall be permitted to... maintain by itself or assignee
publication" and "single publication" rules (invoked by any suit for the recovery of any debt, claim, or demand whatever,
private respondents) to be as follows: unless it shall have the license prescribed in the section
immediately preceding. ..." .. . ;
“The common law as to causes of action for tort arising out of a
single publication was to the effect that each communication of They also invoke
7
the ruling in Marshall-Wells Co. vs. Elser
written or printed matter was a distinct and separate publication & Co., Inc. that no foreign corporation may be permitted to
of a libel contained therein, giving rise to a separate cause of maintain any suit in the local courts unless it shall have
action. This rule ('multiple publication' rule) is still followed in the license required by the law, and the ruling in Atlantic
8
several American jurisdictions, and seems to be favored by the Mutual Ins. Co., Inc. vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. that
American Law Institute. Other jurisdictions have adopted the "where . . . the law denies to a foreign corporation the right
'single publication' rule which originated in New York, under to maintain suit unless it has previously
which any single integrated publication, such as one edition of a
newspaper, book, or magazine, or one broadcast, is treated as a _______________
unit, giving rise to only one cause of action, regardless of the
number of times it is exposed to different people. ..." 7 46 Phil. 70, 76.
8 L-18961, 31 August 1966, 17 SCRA 1037.
_______________ 315
5 Perkins v. Dizon, 72 Phil. 579; 14 Am. Jur. 418.
6 West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Hurd, 27 Phil. 401. VOL. 39, MAY 81, 1971 315
314 Time, Inc. vs. Reyes
" 'lf the question of jurisdiction were not the main ground for this article was first printed or published outside the
petition for review by certiorari, it would be premature because it Philippines.
seeks to have a review of an interlocutory order. But as it would (2) That the action of a court in refusing to rule, or
be useless and futile to go ahead with the proceedings if the court deferring its ruling, on a motion to dismiss for lack
below had no jurisdiction this petition was given due course.' (San of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or for
Beda vs. CIR, 51 O.G. 5636, 5638). improper venue, is in excess of jurisdiction and
‘While it is true that action on a motion to dismiss may be correctible by writ of prohibition or certiorari sued
deferred until the trial and an order to that effect is in out in the appellate Court, even before trial on the
merits is had.
_______________
317
9 36 Am. Jur. 2d 520.
Similarly, in Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20843, 23 Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
June 1965, 14 SCRA 419, this Court held: Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar,
JJ., concur.
"' ................................................................... It is a settled rule that Castro, J., took no part.
the jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter is determined
by the allegations in the complaint; and when a motion to dismiss Writs granted, orders annulled and set aside.
is filed for lack of jurisdiction those allegations are deemed
admitted for purposes of such motion, so that it may be resolved Notes.—A. Time within which to file civil action arising
without waiting for the trial. Thus it has been held that the from libel.—A civil action arising from libel prescribes in
consideration thereof may not be postponed in the hope that the one year. There being no special provision which ordains
evidence may yield other qualifying or concurring data which otherwise, that period must be counted from the day the
would bring the case under the court's jurisdiction.' " action could have been brought. It is the legal possibility of
bringing the action which determines the starting point for
To the same effect are the rulings in Ruperto vs. Fernando, the computation of the period. In the case at bar, the
83 Phil. 948; Administrator of Hacienda Luisita Estate vs. limitation prescribed by law should be counted, not from
Alberto, L-12133, 21 October 1958. October 23, 1955, when the alleged libelous letter was sent
Summing up, We hold: to the Office of the President, but from January 6, 1956, -
when the contents thereof came to appellant's knowledge,
(1) The under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as because although a written defamation becomes actionable
amended by Republic Act No. 4363, actions for upon its publication, it is evident that the libelous matter
damages by public officials for libelous publications must first be exhibited to the person libeled before the
against them can only be filed in the courts of first action could be brought. A person defamed could hardly be
instance of the city or province where the offended expected to institute the proceedings for damages arising
functionary held office at the time of the from libel when he has no knowledge of the said libel.
commission of the offense, in case the libelous (Alcantara v. Amoranto, 107 Phil. 147, 149-150.)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
1/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039
318
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176f9c23e8127fd38cc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15