Lopez VS Ca

Lopez v.
CA - 34 SCRA 116 (wrong picture of person)
DOCTRINE: For liability to arise then without offending press freedom, there is this test to meet: “The
constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was
made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not.” | “No liability would be incurred if it could be demonstrated that it comes within the well-
nigh all-embracing scope of freedom of the press. Included therein is the widest latitude of choice as to what
items should see the light of day so long as they are relevant to a matter of public interest, the insistence on
the requirement or to its truth yielding at times to unavoidable inaccuracies attendant on newspapers and
other publications. H no such showing could be plausibly made, however, it is difficult to resist the con-
clusion that there was in fact the commission of such quasi-delict."
FACTS:
• January 1956 – Front-page story on the Manila Chronicle à Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector assigned to the
Babuyan Islands, sent distress signals to US Airforce planes which forwarded such message to Manila
o An American Army plane dropped emergency sustenance kits on the beach of the island which
contained, among other things, a two way radio set.
o Using the radio set Cruz reported to the authorities in Manila that the locals were living in terror due to a
series of killings committed on the island since Christmas of 1955.
o Philippine defense forces (scout rangers) were immediately deployed to the babuyan claro.  o They
were led by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion who discovered that Cruz only fabricated the story about the killings
to get
attention. Cruz merely wanted transportation home to Manila.
• Major Encarnacion branded the fiasco as a “hoax” à the same word to be used by the newspapers who
covered the same  
• January 13, 1956 – This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle, edited by Gatbonton devoted a pictorial
article to it.  
• It claimed that despite the story of Cruz being a hoax it brought to light the misery of the people living in
that place, with almost  everybody sick, only 2 individuals able to read and write and food and
clothing being scarce  
• January 29, 1956 – This Week Magazinein the “January News Quiz” made reference to Cruz as “a
health inspector who suddenly  felt “lonely” in his isolated post, cooked up a story about a
murderer running loose on the island of Calayan so that he could be  ferried back to
civilization.”Called it “Hoax of the year”  
• In both issues photos of a Fidel Cruz were published but both photos were of a different person of the
same name à Fidel G. Cruz  former mayor, business man, contractor from Santa Maria, Bulacan
 
o January 27, 1957 published statements correcting their misprint and explained that confusion and
error happened due
to the rush to meet the Jan 13th issue’s deadline
• Cruz sued herein petitioners for libel in CFI Manila.  
• Cruz won and was awarded P11,000 in damages (5k actual, 5k moral, 1k attorney’s fees)  
• CA affirmed CFI decision hence this case  
o Certiorari petition: Lopez and Gatbonton claim freedom of the press negates their liability arising
from libel
ISSUE/HELD:
Should petitioners be held liable for their error in printing the wrong Fidel Cruz’s photo in relation to
the “hoax of the year”? - Yes they are liable but damages awarded to Cruz is reduced to P1,000.00
• Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on its face by the fact that it exposes
the injured party to more than trivial ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant.
o Citing Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui à libel is “malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or
by signs or pictures, or the like, ..., tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead or to impeach the
honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby “pose
him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,”
o Citing standard treatise of Newell on Slander and Libel“Publication of a person’s photograph in

connection with an article libelous of a third person, is a libel on the person whose picture is published,
where the acts set out in the article are imputed to such person.”
o In this case 3rd person was Cruz and his picture being published beside the article imputes him as
the purveyor of the hoax of the year
• Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also cannot claim any talismanic immunity form
constitutional limitations  o State interest in press freedom citing Justice Malcolm: Full discussion of
public affairs is necessary for the maintenance of good governance... “Public officials must not be too thin-
skinned with reference to comments on official acts”...”of course criticism does not authorize defamation.
Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the state, so must expected
criticism be born for the common good.”  o So long as it was done in good faith, the press should have the
legal right to have and express their opinions on legal
questions. To deny them that right would be to infringe upon freedom of the press.  o “Last word on the
subject”Citing Quisumbing v. Lopez: Press should be given leeway and tolerance as to enable them
to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy  o Freedom of the press
ranks high in the hierarchy of legal values  o TEST of LIABLITYmust prove there was actual malice in
publishing the story/photo (but this was not done in this case)
• The correction promptly made by petitioners would thus call for a reduction in the damages awarded.
There was no proof of any actual pecuniary loss arising from the above publication. It is worthwhile to recall
what Justice Malcolm referred to as the tolerant attitude on the part of appellate courts on this score, the
usual practice being "more likely to reduce damages for libel than to increase them.

Lopez VS Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez VS Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez VS Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez v.

CA - 34 SCRA 116 (wrong picture of person)

attention. Cruz merely wanted transportation home to Manila.

to the rush to meet the Jan 13th issue’s deadline

• Cruz sued herein petitioners for libel in CFI Manila.

• CA affirmed CFI decision hence this case

o Citing standard treatise of Newell on Slander and Libel“Publication of a person’s photograph in

You might also like