Republic

of the Philippines respondent and indulge them in such a plea. It is not disposed
SUPREME COURT though to affirm respondent Court's decision in its entirety.
Manila Considering all the circumstances, the damages awarded to
private respondent appear to be far too generous. A reduction
EN BANC is in order. The sum of one thousand pesos would be enough.
So we decide.
G.R. No. L-26549 July 31, 1970
The antecedents of the case follow: In the early part of January,
EUGENIO LOPEZ, publisher and owner of the "MANILA, 1956, there appeared on the front page of The Manila
CHRONICLE and JUAN T. GATBONTON, petitioners, Chronicle, of which petitioner Eugenio Lopez was the
vs. publisher, as well as on other dailies, a news story of a sanitary
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FIDEL G. CRUZ, inspector assigned to the Babuyan Islands, Fidel Cruz by name,
respondents. sending a distress signal to a passing United States Airforce
plane which in turn relayed the message to Manila. He was not
Salonga, Ordoez, Sicat & Associates for petitioners. ignored, an American Army plane dropping on the beach of an
island an emergency-sustenance kit containing, among other
things, a two-way radio set. He utilized it to inform authorities
FERNANDO, J.: in Manila that the people in the place were living in terror, due
to a series of killings committed since Christmas of 1955.
There is an element of novelty in this appeal by certiorari from Losing no time, the Philippines defense establishment rushed
a decision of respondent Court of Appeals holding petitioners, to the island a platoon of scout rangers led by Major Wilfredo
the then publisher and editor of This Week Magazine, liable in Encarnacion. Upon arriving at the reported killer-menaced
damages to the tune of eleven thousand pesos arising from the Babuyan Claro, however, Major Encarnacion and his men
publication of a picture of respondent, Fidel G. Cruz, as being found, instead of the alleged killers, a man, the same Fidel Cruz,
responsible for the hoax of the year. The absence of any who merely wanted transportation home to Manila. In view of
connection either fanciful or remote with such event is this finding, Major Wilfredo Encarnacion branded as a "hoax,"
admitted. The view is pressed by petitioners, invoking a liberal to use his own descriptive word, the report of Fidel Cruz. That
construction of the implications of press freedom, owning up to was the term employed by the other newspapers when
the mistake, unfortunately not discovered until it was too late, referring to the above-mentioned incident.
and publishing a correction as an earnest of its good faith, that
they should not be made to pay at all. This Court, without This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle, then edited by
discounting the elements of plausibility of their contention, petitioner Juan T. Gatbonton, devoted a pictorial article to it in
cannot, however, close its eyes to the injury inflicted on its issue of January 15, 1956. Mention was made that while
Fidel Cruz story turned out to be false if brought to light the feature in the Year End Quiz' of This Week in lieu of the health
misery of the people living in that place, with almost everybody inspector Fidel Cruz, who was connected with a story about a
sick, only two individuals able to read and write, food and murderer running loose on Calayan Island. We here express
clothing being scarce. Then in the January 29, 1956 issue of our profound regrets that such an error occurred." Together
This Week Magazine, the "January News Quiz" included an item with the foregoing correction, petitioners published the picture
on the central figure in what was known as the Calayan Hoax, of Fidel Cruz; the photographs and the correction moreover
who nevertheless did the country a good turn by calling the were enclosed by four lines the type used was bolder than
government's attention to that forsaken and desolate corner of ordinary, and the item was placed in a conspicuous place in
the Republic. Earlier in its Special Year End Quiz appearing in order to call the attention of the readers to such amends being
its issue of January 13, 1956, reference was made to a health made.1
inspector who suddenly felt "lonely" in his isolated post,
cooked up a story about a murderer running loose on the Respondent Fidel G. Cruz sued petitioners in the Court of First
island of Calayan so that he could be ferried back to civilization. Instance of Manila for the recovery of damages alleging the
He was given the appellation of "Hoax of the Year." defamatory character of the above publication of his picture.
After trial duly had, he was awarded five thousand pesos as
The magazine on both occasions carried photographs of the actual damages, another five thousand pesos as moral
person purporting to be Fidel Cruz. Unfortunately, the pictures damages, and one thousand pesos for attorney's fees. That
that were published on both occasions were that of private judgment was affirmed on appeal to respondent Court. Hence,
respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a businessman contractor from Santa this petition for certiorari with the result, as already
Maria, Bulacan. It turned out that the photographs of announced at the opening of this opinion, that while
respondent Cruz and that of Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector, respondent Cruz is entitled to Prevail, the damages awarded
were on file in the library of the Manila Chronicle in him should be reduced.
accordance with the standard procedure observed in other
newspaper offices, but when the news quiz format was 1. It is on the freedom of the press that petitioners would stake
prepared, the two photographs were in advertently switched. their case to demonstrate that no action for libel would lie
arising from the publication of the picture of respondent Cruz
As soon, however, as the inadvertent error was brought to the identified as responsible for the hoax of the year, when such
attention of petitioners, the following correction was was not the case at all. It is easily understandable why. No
immediately published in This Week Magazine on January 27, liability would be incurred if it could be demonstrated that it
1957: "While we were rushing to meet: the deadline for comes within the well-nigh all embracing scope of freedom of
January 13th issue of This Week, we inadvertently published the press. Included therein is the widest latitude of choice as to
the picture of former Mayor Fidel G. Cruz of Sta. Maria, what items should see the light of day so long as they are
Bulacan, businessman and contractor, in 'Our Own Who's Who relevant to a matter of public interest, the insistence on the
requirement as to its truth yielding at times to unavoidable his good reputation. Since reputation is a thing of value, truly
inaccuracies attendant on newspapers and other publications rather to be chosen than great riches , an impairment of it is a
being subject to the tyranny of deadlines. If no such showing personal wrong. To redress this personal wrong money
could be plausibly made, however, it is difficult to resist the damages are awarded to the injured person. On the other hand,
conclusion that there was in fact the commission of such quasi- the publication of defamatory statements tends strongly to
delict. It was held in Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui,2 that "the induce breach of the peace by the person defamed, and hence
repeal of the old Libel Law (Act No. 277) did not abolish the is of peculiar moment to the state as the guardian of the public
civil action for libel."3 A libel was defined in that Act as a peace. Viewed from this angle, libel is a crime, and as such
"malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or subjects the offender to a fine or imprisonment." 1 1
by signs or pictures, or the like, ..., tending to blacken the
memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, The first decision cited by Newell is a decision of Justice
or reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects of one Holmes. The case is Peck v. Tribune Co. 1 2 Plaintiff there
who is alive, and thereby "pose him to public hatred, contempt, complained of her picture being published in an advertisement
or ridicule,"4 There was an express provision in such in defendant's newspaper. The Chicago Sunday Tribune, with
legislation for a tort or a quasi-delict action arising from libel.5 certain words of commendation for a brand of liquor attributed
There is reinforcement to such a view in the new Civil Code to her when in fact she did not make such a statement at all and
providing for the recovery of moral damages for libel, slander could not have made it, as she was a total abstainer. The
or any other form of defamation.6 defendant was held liable, for as Justice Holmes pointed out:
"There was some suggestion that the defendant published the
There has been no time then in our judicial history when civil portrait by mistake, and without knowledge that it was the
actions for libel did not form a staple part of litigations which plaintiff's portrait, or was not what it purported to be. But the
had reached this Court.7 Such is the case in a far greater fact, if it was one, was no excuse. If the publication was
measure in the United States. According to the standard libelous, the defendant took the risk. As was said of such
treatise of Newell on Slander and Libel: "Publication of a matters by Lord Mansfield, 'Whenever a man publishes, he
person's photograph in connection with an article libelous of a publishes at his peril.' ... The reason is plain. A libel is harmful
third person, is a libel on the person whose picture is on its face. If a man sees fit to publish manifestly hurtful
published, where the acts set out in the article are imputed to statements concerning an individual, without other
such person."8 In support of the above statement, he made justification than exists for an advertisement or a piece of
reference to several cases.9 Other decisions to the same effect news, the usual principles of tort will make him liable if the
have been promulgated since the fourth edition of Newell statements are false, or are true only of someone else." 1 3
published in 1924. 1 0 Why libel law has both a criminal and a
civil aspect is explained by Hale in his Law of the Press thus: Learned Hand, in holding that an action for libel would lie
"On the one hand, libeling a person results in depriving him of arising from a publication in an advertisement of plaintiff's
photograph yielding a "grotesque monstrous and obscene unjust accusation: the wound can be assuaged with the balm of
impression" and that he was "substantially enough ridiculed" a clear conscience. A public officer must not to be too thin-
to complain reached the conclusion "that because the picture skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only
taken with the legends was calculated to expose the plaintiff to thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be
more than trivial ridicule, it was prima facie actionable; that exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation.
the fact that it did not assume to state a fact or an opinion is Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the State, so must
irrelevant; and that in consequence the publication is expected criticism be born for the common good." 1 7 On this
actionable." 1 4 It is likewise an accepted fact that such aspect of the question which, as answered by him, would
publications do occasion greater injury to reputation than require that a criminal suit for libel should not be utilized as a
would mere words alone. Cardozo so aptly put the matter thus: means for stifling press freedom, he categorically declared:
"'It has its genesis in evils which the years have not erased. "Public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly
Many things that are defamatory may be said with impunity administration of government have demanded protection for
through the medium of speech. Not so, however, when speech public opinion. The inevitable and incontestable result has
is caught upon the wing and transmuted into print. What gives been the development and adoption of the doctrine of
the sting to the writing is its permanence of form. The spoken privilege." 1 8
word dissolves, but the written one abide and Perpetuates the
scandal.' ... When one speaks of a writing in this connection, In another civil action for libel, such a thought is expressed
one does not limit oneself to writings in manuscripts or books. differently in this wise: "So long as it is done in good faith,
Any symbol suffices Pictures, hieroglyphics shorthand notes newspapers have the legal right to have and express opinions
if only what is written is intelligible to him who reads." 1 5 on legal questions. To deny them that right would infringe
upon the freedom of the press." 1 9 The last word on the
2. That is only one side of the picture, however. There is an subject, up to now at least, came from Quisumbing v. Lopez. 2 0
impressive recognition in our decisions of the curtailment to In the language of the then Chief Justice Paras, who penned the
which press freedom would be subjected if an action for libel opinion: "The Court of Appeals found as a fact that "there is no
were not rigorously scrutinized to remove doubts as to its evidence in the record to prove that the publication of the
being utilized to penalize the exercise of that constitutional news item under Consideration was prompted by personal ill
right Thus, in the first leading case, United States v. Bustos, 1 6 will or spite, or that there was intention to do harm,' and that
Justice Malcolm could correctly stress: "The interest of society on the other hand there was 'an honest and high sense of duty
and the maintenance of good government demand a full to serve the best interests of the public, without self-seeking
discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on motive and with malice towards none.' Every citizen of course
the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but we do
The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of not consider that the respondents, under the circumstances of
officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an this case, had violated said right or abused the freedom of the
press. The newspapers should be given such leeway and attacks on government and public officials. ... The present
tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on
perform their important role in our democracy. In the one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly
preparation of stories, press reporters and edition usually have to qualify for the constitutional protection." 2 5
to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith
and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a For liability to arise then without offending press freedom,
point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in there is this test to meet: "The constitutional guarantees
the choice of words." 2 1 require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official
from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating
It was not until 1964 that the United States Supreme Court had to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was
occasion to speak its mind on the subject. In the leading case of made with 'actual malice' that is, with knowledge that it was
New York Times Co. v. Sulivan, 2 2 the nature of the question false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
presented was set forth by Justice Brennan for the Court in the 2 6 The United States Supreme Court went further in Curtis
opening paragraph of his opinion: "We are required in this case Publishing Co. v. Butts, 2 7 where such immunity, was held as
to determine for the first time the extent to which the covering statements concerning public figures regardless of
constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's whether or not they are government officials. Why there
power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public should be such an extension is understandable in the light of
official against critics of his official conduct." 2 3 This is the the broad scope enjoyed by press freedom which certainly
Court's approach to such an issue: "In deciding the question allows a full and free discussion of public issues. What can be
now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor Policy to give more logical and appropriate, then, than such an expansion of
any more weight to the epithet 'libel' than we have to other the principle. As noted by a commentator: "Since discussion of
'mere labels' of state law. ... Like insurrection, contempt, public issues cannot be meaningful without reference to the
advocacy of unlawful acts, breach of the peace, obscenity, men involved on both sides of such issues, and since such men
solicitation of legal business, and the various other formulae will not necessarily be public officials, one cannot but agree
for the repression of expression that have been challenged in that the Court was right in Curtis to extend the Times rule to all
this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from public figures." 2 8
constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards
that satisfy the First Amendment." 2 4 Continuing the same The significance of the foregoing line of decisions impressive
trend, the opinion stressed further: "Thus we consider this case for their consistency is quite obvious. No inroads on press
against the background of a profound national commitment to freedom should be allowed in the guise of punitive action
the principle that debate on public issues should be visited on what otherwise could be characterized as libel
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well whether in the form of printed words or a defamatory
include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp imputation resulting from the publication of respondent's
picture with the offensive caption as in the case here to act with haste as the picture of respondent was published in
complained of. This is not to deny that the party responsible a weekly magazine. Moreover, there is the added requirement
invites the institution either of a criminal prosecution or a civil of reasonable care imposed by such decision which from the
suit. It must be admitted that what was done did invite such a facts here found, appeared not to be satisfied. It cannot be
dire consequence, considering the value the law justly places concluded then that the plea of petitioners is sufficiently
on a man's reputation. This is merely to underscore the persuasive. The mandate of press freedom is not ignored, but
primacy that freedom of the press enjoys. It ranks rather high here it does not speak unequivocally. It is not decisive of the
in the hierarchy of legal values. If the cases moan anything at basic issue. By itself, it does not have a controlling significance.
all then, to emphasize what has so clearly emerged, they call So we hold.
for the utmost care on the part of the judiciary to assure that in
safeguarding the interest of the party allegedly offended a 4. Petitioners would make much, likewise, of their correction,
realistic account of the obligation of a news media to which has all the force of a retraction, as a basis from being
disseminate information of a public character and to comment absolved from any pecuniary responsibility. The present Chief
thereon as well as the conditions attendant on the business of Justice in Policarpio v. Manila Times 2 9 restated the
publishing cannot be ignored. To single out one decision, controlling principle: "We note that the news item published
Quisumbing v. Lopez so speaks in tones loud and clear. on August 13, 1956, rectified a major inaccuracy contained in
the first article, by stating that neither Col. Alba nor the PCAC
3. It is to the haven thus afforded by such a highly sympathetic had filed the aforementioned complaints with the city fiscal's
ruling to press freedom that petitioners would seek refuge. The office. It, likewise, indicated the number of sheets of stencil
defamatory matter complained of in the Quisumbing case involved in said complaints. But, this rectification or
appeared in the headline. It was without basis, as shown by the clarification does not wipe out the responsibility arising from
text of the news item itself. Nonetheless, for the reasons the publication of the first article, although it may and should
expressed with vigor and clarity by former Chief Justice Paras, mitigate it (Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27 Phil. 52)." 3 0
no liability was deemed incurred by the then publisher of the
Manila Chronicle A newspaper, it is stressed, "should not be The correction promptly made by petitioners would thus call
held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes for a reduction in the damages awarded. It should be noted
or imperfection in the choice of words." The above ruling, that there was no proof of any actual pecuniary logs arising
coupled with the requirement in the New York Times decision from the above publication. It is worthwhile to recall what
of the United States Supreme Court, would for the writer of this Justice Malcolm referred to as the tolerant attitude on the part
opinion, furnish a sufficient basis for the success of this appeal. of appellate courts on this score, the usual practice being "more
The Court, however, is not inclined to view matters thus. likely to reduce damages for libel than to increase them." 3 1
Obviously Quisumbing v. Lopez is not squarely in point. Here
there was no pressure of a daily deadline to meet no occasion
WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals of an alleged libelous publication, without offending press
August 25, 1966 affirming the lower court decision of March freedom, there is need to prove that the publication was made
22, 1958 is hereby modified, petitioners Eugenio Lopez and with actual malice that is, with knowledge of its falsity or
Juan T. Gatbonton being ordered to pay jointly and severally with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
the sum of P500.00 as moral damages and the additional
amount of P500.00 for attorney's fees. Costs against Under the facts of the present case, there is obviously no
petitioners. criminal liability for libel. As far as liability in damages is
concerned, it is equally clear upon the record that there is no
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar and Teehankee, JJ., evidence of actual malice that is, there is no evidence
concur. showing that petitioners or their subordinates knew that the
imputation made to respondent Cruz was false or that, in
Castro and Barredo, JJ., concur in the result. publishing that imputation, they had recklessly disregarded the
question of whether it was false or true.

Separate Opinions On the other hand, any liability in damages, on the part of
petitioners, on the basis of tort would seem to be equally
DIZON, J., dissenting: untenable. In the first place, the alleged hoax to which
respondent Cruz1 person was related as a result of the
Much to my regret I am constrained to dissent from the publication in question if considered without passion and in
scholarly opinion penned for the majority by Mr. Justice the right perspective-ascribes to him nothing immoral or
Enrique Fernando. involving moral turpitude. In the second place, in the light of
the circumstances surrounding the case, whatever negligence
I accept the antecedent facts of the case as set forth on pp. 2-3 there might have been on the part of petitioners or their
of the majority opinion and, precisely on the basis thereof, I subordinates would amount only to what might be legitimately
hold the view that the decision appealed from should be considered as "excusable negligence" thus eliminating any
reversed. idea of malice or intention to cause injury, on their part.

The case should be resolved, in my opinion, in the 'light of New PREMISES CONSIDERED, I vote to reverse the decision
York Times Company vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), as the appealed from.
ruling therein laid down was amplified in Curtis Publishing
Company vs. Butts, 388 U.S. 120 (1967). After considering the
facts involved and the doctrine laid down in said cases, the
majority opinion says that for liability in damages to arise from