University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic Freedom of the Press

Case No. GR No. 126466 / Jan 14, 1999
Case Name Borjal vs CA
Ponente BELLOSILLO, j.

DOCTRINE
● Requisites of libel
○ In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not
necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself
as the person attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could
identify him as the object of the libelous publication.
● Identification
○ Identification is grossly inadequate when even the alleged offended party is himself unsure that
he was the object of the verbal attack.
● Privileged Communications
○ A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged
■ Absolutely Privileged
● Not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith.
○ Sec. 11, Art. VI, of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of
Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
any Committee thereof.
■ Qualifiedly privileged communications
● defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made
without good intention or justifiable motive.
● Doctrine of fair comment
○ While in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every
man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is
deemed malicious
○ When the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is
not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be
actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition.
If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that
the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.
● Malice
○ to be considered malicious, the libelous statements must be shown to have been written or
published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of whether they are
false or not.
● New York Times doctrine (aka public official doctrine)
○ liability for defamation of a public official or public figure may not be imposed in the absence of
proof of "actual malice" on the part of the person making the libelous statement.

SUMMARY
● A civil action for damages based on libel was filed before the court against Borjal and Soliven for writing
and publishing articles that are allegedly derogatory and offensive against Francisco Wenceslao,
attacking among others the solicitation letters he send to support a conference to be launch concerning
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

resolving matters on transportation crisis that is tainted with anomalous activities. Wenceslao however
was never named in any of the articles nor was the conference he was organizing. The lower court
ordered petitioners to indemnify the private respondent for damages which was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. A petition for review was filed before the SC contending that private respondent was not
sufficiently identified to be the subject of the published articles. SC reversed CA decision. The
questioned articles written by Borjal do not identify Wenceslao as the organizer of the conference

RELEVANT FACTS

● Arturo Borjal - President of PHILSTAR Daily Inc, owner of The Philippine Star
● Maximo Solven – Publisher and Chairman of its Editorial Board.
● Francisco Wenceslao – technical adviser of Cong. Sison, then Chairman of the HoR Sub-Committee on
Industrial Policy

● During the congressional hearings on the transport crisis sometime in September 1988 undertaken by
the House Sub-Committee on Industrial Policy, those who attended agreed to organize the First National
Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT) with the objective to draft an omnibus bill that would
embody a long-term land transportation policy for presentation to Congress.

● According to Wenceslao, the conference would be funded through solicitations from various sponsors.

o Wenceslao was elected Executive Director. As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to
the business community for the support of the conference

● Series of articles written by petitioner Borjal was published on different dates in his column Jaywalker.
The articles dealt with the alleged anomalous activities of an "organizer of a conference" without
naming or identifying private respondent. Neither did it refer to the FNCLT as the conference therein
mentioned.
o Described “him” as a “Self-proclaimed hero”, “a conference organizer associated with shady
deals who has a lot of trash tucked inside his closet”, "thick face," and "a person with dubious
ways."

ISSUE

● W/N there is a valid cause of action for libel against petitioners

● W/N the subject article constitutes qualifiedly privileged communication
● W/N the “public official doctrine” is applicable
● W/N there was malice in the publication of the article

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N there is a valid cause of NO.
action for libel against
petitioners 1. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be
identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. It is also
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the

person attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a
third person could identify him as the object of the libelous
publication. Regrettably, these requisites have not been complied
with in the case at bar.
a. The questioned articles written by Borjal do not identify
private respondent Wenceslao as the organizer of the
conference.
i. the 31 May 1989 issue of The Philippine Star yielded
nothing to indicate that private respondent was the
person referred to therein.
b. Wenceslao himself entertained doubt that he was the person
spoken of in Borjal's columns.
i. His letter to the editor published in the 4 June 1989
issue of The Philippine Star even showed private
respondent Wenceslao's uncertainty
ii. “Although he used a subterfuge, I was almost certain
that Art Borjal referred to the First National
Conference on Land Transportation (June 29-30) and
me in the second paragraph of his May 31 column”
W/N the subject article YES
constitutes qualifiedly
privileged communication 1. US v Canete
a. publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy
are protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of
speech.
2. Doctrine of fair comment (see Doctrine part above)
3. The questioned article dealt with matters of public interest as the
declared objective of the conference, the composition of its members
and participants, and the manner by which it was intended to be
funded no doubt lend to its activities as being genuinely imbued with
public interest.

*Borjal’s writing are not within the exceptions of Art. 354 of RPC. However
Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications. The
rule on privileged communications had its genesis not in the nation's penal
code but in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of
speech and of the press.

W/N the “public official YES

doctrine” (New York Times
doctrine) is applicable 1. Wenceslao deemed as a public figure within the purview of the New
York Times ruling.
a. Definition of public figure in Ayers Production Pty., Ltd. v.
Capulong
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

- “a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living, or by

adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate
interest in his doings, his affairs and his character, has become a
public personage.”

- “…anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is

focused upon him as a person.”

2. despite the position he occupied in the FNCLT, would not qualify as a

public figure, it does not necessarily follow that he could not validly
be the subject of a public comment even if he was not a public official
or at least a public figure, for he could be, as long as he was involved
in a public issue.
W/N there was malice in the NONE
publication of the article
1. Private respondent failed to substantiate by preponderant evidence
that petitioner was animated by a desire to inflict unjustifiable harm
on his reputation, or that the articles were written and published
without good motives or justifiable ends.
2. [SC] finds petitioner Borjal to have acted in good faith.
a. Moved by a sense of civic duty and prodded by his
responsibility as a newspaperman, he proceeded to expose
and denounce what he perceived to be a public deception.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals of 25 March 1996 and its Resolution
of 12 September 1996 denying reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the complaint for damages
against petitioners is DISMISSED. Petitioners counterclaim for damages is likewise DISMISSED for lack of merit.
No costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES