University of Makati School of Law | Constitutional Law II

Case Digest By: Remuel Torres | Reviewed By:

ARTURO BORJAL a.k.a. ART BORJAL and MAXIMO SOLIVEN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
FRANCISCO WENCESLAO, respondents.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
BORJAL VS. CA
January 14, 1999 G.R. No. 126466 BELLOSILLO, J.
Recit Ready Synopsis
FACTS

This case is petition for review seeking the reversal of the CA ruling which held petitioners liable
for damages for writing and publishing certain articles claimed to be derogatory and offensive to
private respondent Francisco Wenceslao.

Petitioners Borjal and Soliven are among the incorporators of Philippines Today, Inc. (PTI), now
PhilSTAR Daily, Inc., owner of The Philippine Star, a daily newspaper. Borjal was its President
while Soliven was Publisher and Chairman of its Editorial Board. Among the regular writers of
The Philippine Star is Borjal who runs the column Jaywalker.

On the other hand, private respondent, Wenceslao, was elected as the Executive Director for the
First National Conference on Land Transportation (FNCLT). The said conference was organized
to be participated in by the private sector in the transport industry and government agencies
concerned to find ways and means to solve the transportation crisis and draft an omnibus bill
that would embody a long-term land transportation policy for presentation to Congress.
Wenceslao wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business community for the support and
funding of the conference.

The issue in this case arose when in one of the Jaywalker columns in 1989, Borjal wrote a series
of articles which alleged anomalous activities of an “organizer of a conference” without naming
or identifying private respondent, or the FNCLT. Amongst the anomalous activities described are
the collection 'huge' conference fees, unauthorized use of the names of the then President
Aquino and her transportation secretary, offering to facilitate bribery to his connections in the
garments sector, and poor attendance to the conference.

Private respondent reacted to the articles and sent a letter to The Philippine Star insisting that he
was the “organizer” alluded to in petitioner Borjal’s columns. He then filed a complaint with the
National Press Club (NPC) against petitioner Borjal for unethical conduct. Petitioner Borjal
published a rejoinder to the challenge of private respondent not only to protect his name and
honor but also to refute the claim that he was using his column for character assassination.

Private respondent filed a criminal case for libel against petitioners Borjal and Soliven, but the
Assistant Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Dismissal was
sustained by the Department of Justice and Office of the President.

In 1990, private respondent instituted against petitioners a civil action for damages based on
libel. The trial court decided in favor of private respondent Wenceslao and ordered petitioners
Borjal and Soliven to indemnify private respondent for damages and cost of suit.
 University of Makati School of Law | Constitutional Law II
Case Digest By: Remuel Torres | Reviewed By:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court a quo but reduced the amount of the
monetary award for damages. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court of
Appeals denied the motion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the disputed articles constitute privileged communications as to exempt

RULING

YES. The Court held that fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment espouses
that when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it
is not necessarily actionable.

Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides the cases of privileged communication, to wit:

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and,
2) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative
or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.

The Court agreed that petitioner Borjal’s questioned writings are not within the exceptions of Art.
354 of the Revised Penal Code for, as correctly observed by the appellate court, they are neither
private communications nor fair and true report without any comments or remarks.

However, the enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list. 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. These requisites have not been complied with in the case at bar. The element of
identifiability was not met since it was Wenceslaso who revealed he was the organizer of said
conference and had he not done so the public would not have known.

The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of the press and that
privileged communications must be protective of public opinion. In this case, no culpability could
be imputed to petitioners for the alleged offending publication without doing violence to the
concept of privileged communications implicit in the freedom of the press.

Additionally, the questioned articles dealt with matters of public interest as the declared objective
 University of Makati School of Law | Constitutional Law II
Case Digest By: Remuel Torres | Reviewed By:

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. Respondent is also deemed to be a public figure and even otherwise is involved in a
public issue. The court also reminded that, "A public official must not be too thin-skinned with
reference to comments upon his official acts.”

The court held that freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed and protected. It also
gave a reminder among media members to practice highest ethical standards in the exercise
thereof. The press is the servant, not the master, of the citizenry, and its freedom does not carry
with it an unrestricted hunting license to prey on the ordinary citizen.

Legal Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case

1. Absolutely privileged communication are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted
in bad faith. An example is found in 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.

2. Qualifiedly privileged communications are those containing defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this genre belong
"private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks."

FACTS

ISSUE

RULING

DISPOSITIVE
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. SO ORDERED.
OTHER NOTES