ABS-CBN v.

Ampatuan
G.R. No. 227004

Facts:
● This case arose when ABS-CBN reporter Carino made an interview with one of the
witnesses, Saliao, in the Maguindanao Massacre case pending that time.
● The interview was televised notwithstanding that Saliao had not yet testified as a
witness.
● Due to this circumstance, herein respondent Ampatuan filed an indirect contempt
against herein petitioners ABS-CBN and Carino, its reporter.
● The ABS-CBN contended that the Maguindanao Massacre was a matter of public
interest and that the media had the right to publish it. It also contended that freedom
of speech and of expression should prevail over the sub judice rule.
● The RTC cited herein petitioners for indirect contempt. On appeal, the CA affirmed
the RTC’s ruling.

Issue:
● Whether or not the petitioners can be cited in contempt. - NO

Ruling:
● There are 4 classes of speech. The first class pertains to the speech of the litigants
and their counsels, the second class to the speech of members of the bar and bench,
the third class pertains to the speech of the press and the public, and the fourth class
pertains to online speeches.
● The first class of speech is subject to the greatest restriction because they
voluntarily agree to abide by the Rules of Court, particularly, the sub judice rule, and
the decorum required in judicial proceedings. It should be assessed based on a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil that will affect the administration of justice.
● The second class of speech pertains to public commentaries of lawyers in general,
specifically those engaging in public discourse in relation to cases of other lawyers.
The same also applies to justices and judges who should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence.
● The third class of speech which should be subject to the least restriction as it
involves public interest. Qualified privileged communications are matters of defense
which must be established by the one claiming them. Once established, the burden
of proof to show the existence of actual malice in the publication or abuse of right of
the members of the press is upon the court or person seeking to punish the
publication. It is subject to sub judice rule, but only if there’s an existence of clear and
present danger in the administration of justice.
● The fourth class are the criticisms or comments against the courts in social media,
which must also be subject to the limits of fair criticism. This does not include
malicious defamation against the courts, like the standard for the public. This is
because a post can become viral in a matter of minutes, and can be used as a tool to
defeat the public's confidence in the court.
As to the merits of petition:

● For a petition for indirect contempt to prosper, it must be alleged the following:
❖ First, public statements were made regarding the merits of the case while it is
pending before the courts.
❖ Second, since intent or the mental element is necessary in criminal contempt.
❖ Third, the clear and present danger of the utterance to the court's
administration of justice.
❖ Fourth, the effect of the speech on the administration of justice must be
shown.

● Here, the first and fourth requisites are present. Based on the facts, Saliao sought
refuge from the media because of the criminal case of theft filed against him by the
Ampatuan as well as his knowledge about the killings. Due to such knowledge, he
discovered that he was going to be killed, hence, he already sought refuge from the
media before the Ampatuans were able to do so. Clearly, due to his statements, it
interfered with the court proceedings and affected the Ampatuan’s right to fair trial.
● As to the second requisite, there was no allegation of intent or actual malice on the
part of the petitioners to disregard the truth in the statements of Saliao.
● As to the fourth requisite, there was no sufficient allegation of the clear and present
danger of the interview and its broadcast. Although it was alleged that the statements
could generate negative impressions on the public and might influence the judge on
the outcome of the case, it failed to allege its imminence as regards the court's
administration of justice.

Re: Privilege Communication:

● A statement, report, or speech must be delivered in the judicial proceeding for the
qualified privilege of fair and true reporting can apply. The privilege does not extend
to interviewing a witness and airing it on national television before they were
delivered in the judicial proceeding, as in this case. Hence, petitioners usurped the
role of the courts in receiving the testimony of the witness.
● While petitioners are correct that the statement is a matter of grave public concern to
which the press may give publicity, they should not have presented him as a witness
on national television.

Additional notes:

● When defamatory allegations are uttered against the courts, justices and judges
cannot defend themselves like other public officers. They have no political machinery
to speak for and defend them, and the courts can only rely on their officers, who may
likewise not be capable of responding in real time.
● Courts are weak to correct when false information about them is circulated. Hence,
the inherent contempt powers of the court should be available to address the
damaging effects of contemptuous speech.