Case Digest: Bonifacio et al., vs RTC Makati and Jessie John Gimenez GR No 184800

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Bonifacio et al., vs RTC Makati and Jessie John Gimenez
GR No 184800                                                                           May 5, 2010

Facts:
Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed in behalf of Yuchenco Family of Yuchenco Group of Companies (YGC) and Malayan Insurance Co., (Malayan), a criminal complain for 13 counts of libel under Art. 355 in relation to Art. 353 of the RPC against the members of Paents Enabling Parents Coalition Inc (PEPCI), a group of discontented planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc (PPI) which is owned by the Yuchengco’s, for they previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect thereon or avail of the benefits of such after PPI, due to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer of suspension of payments.

That PEPCI members owns and moderates a website and a blog with web domains: www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, www.pepcoalition.com, and no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com. Gimenez alleged that upon accessing such websites in Makati he red various article containing highly derogatory statements and false accusations attacking the Yuchengco Family.

Since the article was first published and accessed by Gimenez at Makati City, pursuant to Art. 360 of the RPC as amended by RA 4363.

Issue:
How should an online article be treated in relation to a written defamation/libel with respect to jurisdiction of the case provided by law specifically Art. 360 of the RPC?

Ruling:
Art. 360 of the RPC provides:

“Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
xxxx
The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the oofense. xxxx”

That venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited only to:

  1. Where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or
  2. Where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published was used as basis for the venue of the action, the Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published. The same measures cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the point of its printing and first publication. TO give credence to Gimenez’s argument would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. It would do chaos wherein website author, writer, blogger or anyone who post messages in websites could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines.

The information is quashed and the case is dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more