Scribd
Upload
251 views1 page

Ledesma vs. CA 278 S 656

The case involved a libel complaint filed by Dr. Juan Torres against Dr. Rhodora Ledesma regarding a letter she sent. The letter concerned grievances over inaccurate payment of professional fees and unfair treatment at their workplace. The court found the letter was a qualified privileged communication as Dr. Ledesma sent it in good faith to her superior to address her grievances. As the letter was privileged and sent without malice, the court held it was not libelous. The information also failed to sufficiently allege malice. Therefore, the court dismissed the libel complaint against Dr. Ledesma.

Uploaded by

Emman Cena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
251 views1 page

Ledesma vs. CA 278 S 656

The case involved a libel complaint filed by Dr. Juan Torres against Dr. Rhodora Ledesma regarding a letter she sent. The letter concerned grievances over inaccurate payment of professional fees and unfair treatment at their workplace. The court found the letter was a qualified privileged communication as Dr. Ledesma sent it in good faith to her superior to address her grievances. As the letter was privileged and sent without malice, the court held it was not libelous. The information also failed to sufficiently allege malice. Therefore, the court dismissed the libel complaint against Dr. Ledesma.

Uploaded by

Emman Cena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ledesma vs.

CA 278 S 656
G.R. No. 113216 September 5, 1997 RHODORA M. LEDESMA, petitioner,  vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of RTC, Quezon City, respondents

Facts : Sometime in April 1992, a complaint for libel was filed by Dr. Juan F. Torres,
Jr. against Dr. Rhodora M. Ledesma, petitioner herein, before the Quezon City
Prosecutor's Office, docketed as I.S. No. 92-5433A. Petitioner filed her counter-
affidavit to the complaint. Finding "sufficient legal and factual basis," the Quezon
City Prosecutor's Office filed on July 6, 1992 an Information for libel against
petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104. A petition for
review of the resolution of Assistant City Prosecutor Vestil was filed by petitioner
before the Department of Justice pursuant to P.D. No. 77 as amended by P.D. No.
911. The Department of Justice gave due course to the petition and directed the
Quezon City prosecutor to move for deferment of further proceedings and to elevate
the entire records of the case. 5 Accordingly, a "Motion to Defer, Arraignment" dated
September 7, 1992 was filed by Prosecutor Tirso M. Gavero before the court a quo. 6
On September 9, 1992, the trial court granted the motion and deferred petitioner's
arraignment until the final termination of the petition for review. 7 Without the
consent or approval of the trial prosecutor, private complainant, through counsel, filed
a Motion to Lift the Order dated September 9, 1992 and to Set the Case for
Arraignment/Trial

Issue : WON the letter is libelous

Held : In every case for libel, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim
must be identifiable Petitioner's letter was written to seek redress of proper grievance
against the inaccurate distribution and payment of professional fees and against unfair
treatment in the Nuclear Medicine Department of the Philippine Heart Center
Petitioner's letter was written to seek redress of proper grievance against the
inaccurate distribution and payment of professional fees and against unfair treatment
in the Nuclear Medicine Department of the Philippine Heart Center. It is a qualified
privileged communication under Article 354(1) of the Revised Penal Code Petitioner's
letter was a private communication made in the performance of a moral duty on her
part. Her intention was not to inflict an unjustifiable harm on the private complainant,
but to present her grievance to her superior. The privileged nature of her letter
overcomes the presumption of malice. There is no malice when justifiable motive
exists; and in the absence of malice, there is no libel. We note that the information
itself failed to allege the existence of malice Further, we note that the information
against petitioner was filed only on July 27, 1992 or one year after June 27, 1991, the
date the letter was sent. It is obviously nothing more than a countercharge to give
Complainant Torres a leverage against petitioner's administrative action against him

You might also like