SC junks ex-Makati judge's libel suit vs Inquirer

Reversing the Court of Appeals’ earlier decisions, the Supreme Court has dismissed the libel suit that a former Makati City judge filed against the Philippine Daily Inquirer in 1996. In a 12-page decision promulgated last March 23, the high court’s First Division reversed and set aside the CA’s decision and resolution ruling in favor of former Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Escolastico Cruz Jr., who was dismissed from service in 2002 because of a different administrative case. In 2005, the CA held that it cannot rule whether there is probable cause to indict the Inquirer's editorial staff for libel because the criminal information has been filed with the Makati court. Named respondents in the case were Isagani Yambot (publisher), Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc (editor-in-chief), Jose Ma. De Nolasco, Artemio Engracia (staff members), and Volt Contreras (reporter). In 1996, Contreras wrote an article titled “Judge mauled me, says court employee," which reported on the supposed mauling incident between Cruz and court employee Robert Mendoza. A portion of the article read: “According to Mendoza, Cruz still had a pending case of sexual harassment filed with the Supreme Court by Fiscal Maria Lourdes Garcia, also of the Makati RTC." Cruz, denying that he has a pending sexual harassment suit at the Supreme Court, filed a libel complaint before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, which found probable cause to indict the respondents for libel. The Inquirer later contested the Makati prosecutor’s resolution before the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, their appeals were denied in 2000 by then DOJ Secretary Artemio Tuquero. SC: No malice The Inquirer then sought redress from the CA, which ruled in 2005 that it has no jurisdiction to rule on the finding of probable cause. This prompted the respondents to elevate the matter to the SC, which on March 23 granted their appeal to set aside the CA decisions. In its decision, the high court held that while the Inquirer erroneously reported that Cruz had a pending sexual harassment case, there was no malicious imputation in the report. “The questioned portion of the news article, while unfortunately not quite accurate, on its own, is insufficient to establish the element of malice in libel cases. We have held that malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm," said the SC. “A newspaper should not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes, or imperfection in the choice of words," it added, noting the straightforward narration of facts in Contreras' report. The high tribunal added that the freedom of the press must be upheld and that there was no prima facie (on its face) case of libel against the respondents. “In light of the particular factual context of the present controversy, we find that the need to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press and crystal clear absence of prima facie case against the PDI staff justify the resort to the extraordinary writ of certiorari," the SC said. The SC added that Contreras cannot be faulted for not knowing the difference between a sexual harassment suit and a suit with allegations of sexual harassment. “While indeed, the allegation of inappropriate sexual advances in an appeal of a contempt ruling does not turn such case into one for sexual harassment, we agree with petitioners’ position that the subject news article's author, not having any legal training, cannot be expected to make the fine distinction between a sexual harassment suit and a suit where there was an allegation of sexual harassment," said the SC. Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro wrote the decision, which was concurred in by Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo, and Jose Perez. - KBK, GMA News