CASE DIGEST

62 Jimenez v. Cabangbang
Constitutional Law 1

Court Supreme Court, En Banc

Citation G.R. No. 15905
Date 3 August 1966
Plaintiffs-Appellants Nicanor T. Jimenez, et al
Defendant-Appellee Bartolome Cabangbang
Relevant topic Salaries, Privileges, and Disqualifications

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:
Full Name Tag Character Description
Bartolome Cabangbang (“Cabangbang”) Member of the House of Representatives and
Chairman of its Committee on National
Defense
Nicanor T. Jimenez (“Petitioners”) Under NICA
Carlos J. Albert Under G-2, AFP
Jose L. Lukban Under NBI

FACTS:

• 14 November 1958 – Cabangbang published an open letter to the President in several news papers of general
circulation in the Philippines regarding the alleged operational plans of the Secretary of Defense to launch his
presidential career in the 1961 elections.
o The petitioners were mentioned in the letter:

"It is reported that the 'Planners' have under their control the following: (1)
Col. Nicanor Jimenez of NICA, (2) Lt. Col. Jose Lukban of NBI. (3) Capt.
Carlos Albert (PN) of G-2 AFP…It is, of course, possible that the officers
mentioned above are unwittingly tools of the Plan of which they may
have absolutely no knowledge."

• The petitioners sued Cabangbang for the crime of libel and sought financial compensation for the damages
caused by the letter.

• Cabangbang moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the letter was a privileged form of
communication and that it was not libelous, based on Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution

Article VI, Section 15. The Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the
peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions
of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other
place.

ISSUES-HELD-RATIONALE:

W/N the contested • The speech or debate mentioned in the above article refers to the utterances by
publication is a Congress members in the performance of their official duties, such as delivering
privileged form of speeches, making statements, or casting votes in the Congressional hall while the
communication same is in session. It could also refer to the introduction of bills in Congress, whether
NO it is session or not, and other acts performed by Congress members in their official
capacity whether there was a session or not, whether inside or outside the premises
of one's office.
• Cabangbang’s letter:
o Published at a time when the Congress was not in session
o Cabangbang was not performing his official duty when he intended the letter
to be published

Page 1 of 1