GMA Network, Inc. v.

Bustos
G.R. NO. 146848, October 17, 2006

Facts
Background and Context
 In August 1987, the Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) conducted the physicians’ licensure examinations, with
2,835 examinees and 941 failures.
 On February 10, 1988, following allegations of scoring errors—including
mistakes in answer marking, erroneous counting of scores, and erroneous
transmutation of raw scores—a petition for mandamus was filed before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila by Abello and over 200 other
unsuccessful examinees, seeking a re-check and re-evaluation of the
examination papers.

The News Report and Its Content

 Rey Vidal, a news writer and reporter of petitioner GMA Network, Inc.
(formerly Republic Broadcasting System, Inc.), covered the filing of the
petition for mandamus.
 Vidal’s telecast on Channel 7 on February 10, 1988 detailed:
 The filing of the mandamus petition by 227 examinees against the PRC
and the Board of Medicine for alleged errors in the licensure examinations.
 Statements regarding the alleged “gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical
and capricious” checking of the examination papers.
 The procedural details about the venues, the involvement of multiple
subjects (e.g., general medicine, biochemistry, surgery, obstetrics and
gynecology), and the participation of several schools.
 The revelation by the petitioners that, upon being allowed to view their
own test papers and even obtain the official test questions, discrepancies
in marking had allegedly lowered the examinees’ scores.

The Alleged Defamation and the Lawsuit

 On September 21, 1988, respondents—comprising physicians (including
Jesus G. Bustos, Teodora R. Ocampo, Victor V. Buencamino, Cesar F.
Villafuerte, Artemio T. Ordinario, and Virgilio C. Basilio), who were former
chairman and members of the Board of Medicine—filed a damage suit
against Vidal and GMA Network, Inc.
 The respondents claimed that the news report was false, malicious, and
one-sided, and that it defamed them by blaming their professional
integrity without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
 Additionally, respondents argued that the insertion of unrelated old film
footage (from a 1982 demonstration by doctors at the Philippine General
Hospital regarding a wage and economic dispute) in the telecast served to
further misrepresent the facts.
 In their complaint (Civil Case No. 88-1952, raffled to Branch 64 of the RTC
of Makati City), the respondents alleged that:
  The report was recklessly prepared, neglecting the duty to provide a
balanced view.
 The old film footage, shown without the identifying character-generated
words “file video” to indicate its historical nature, created an erroneous
impression that the demonstration was connected to the pending
mandamus petition.

Procedural History and Decisions

 The RTC, in a decision dated October 17, 1995, found for the petitioners
(defendants a quo), holding that:
 The February 10, 1988 news report was a straightforward narration of a
court petition concerning public officials.
 The communication was privileged under the law, as it merely reported
facts already presented in the filed petition.
 After the trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, the
respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
52240.
 The CA reversed the RTC decision on January 25, 2001, awarding moral
and exemplary damages against the petitioners.
 The CA's decision was primarily premised on its view that the insertion of
the unrelated 1982 film footage, absent the clarifying “file video” caption,
evidenced malice and thus tainted the otherwise privileged report.

Questions Raised in the Petition for Review

 Petitioners challenged whether the CA:
 Committed reversible error and abused its discretion by imputing actual
malice on the news telecast despite its nature as a qualifiedly privileged
communication.
 Erroneously dismissed their evidence regarding the use of the character-
generated words “file video” to distinguish the old film footage.
 Wrongly imputed malice to petitioners for not presenting a tape copy of
the news report, alleging that a copy could easily be secured from the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).
 Permitted the respondent Board of Medicine to later seek an increased
award in damages despite not contesting the Court of Appeals’ decision in
a separate petition.
 Issues
(1)W/N the televised news report in question on the filing of the petition for
mandamus against the respondents is libelous
(2)W/N the insertion of the old film footage depicting the doctor and personnel of
the PGH in their 1982 demonstrations constitutes malice to warrant the award
of damages to the respondents.

Ruling

1. The Supreme Court ruled that N the televised news report in question on the
filing of the petition for mandamus against the respondents is NOT libelous.

In the instant case, there can be no quibbling that what petitioner

corporation aired in its Channel 7 in the February 10, 1988 late evening
newscast was basically a narration of the contents of the aforementioned
petition for mandamus. This is borne by the records of the case and was likewise
the finding of the trial court. And the narration had for its subject nothing more
than the purported mistakes in paper checking and the errors in counting and
tallying of scores in August 1987 physicians' licensure examinations attributable
to then chairman and members of Board of Medicine.

Conceding hypothetically that some failing specifically against

respondents had been ascribed in that news telecast, it bears to stress that not
all imputations of some discreditable act or omission, if there be any, are
considered malicious thus supplying ground for actionable libel. For although
every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, presumption does
not exist in matters considered privileged. In fine, privilege destroys
presumption.

A comparative examination of the telecast of the disputed news report

with the Petition for Mandamus entitled Abello, et al., vs. Professional
Regulation Commission ... filed before the [RTC] by the medical examinees
reveals that the disputed news report is but a narration of the allegations
contained in and circumstances attending the filing of the said Petition for
Mandamus. In the case of Cuenco vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-29560, March 31, 1976
..., [it was] ... held that the correct rule is that a fair and true report of a
complaint filed in Court without remarks nor comments even before an answer
is filed or a decision promulgated should be covered by the privilege. .... This
Court adopts the ruling [in Cuenco] to support its finding of fact that the
disputed news report consists merely of a summary of the allegations in said
Petition for Mandamus, filed by medical examinees, thus same falls within
protected ambit privileged communication.
 2. The Court ruled that the insertion of the old film footage depicting the doctor
and personnel of the PGH in their 1982 demonstrations DOES NOT constitute
malice

The Court highlighted that actual malice, as a concept in libel, cannot

plausibly be deduced from the fact of petitioners having dubbed in their
February 10, 1988 telecast an old unrelated video footage. As it were,
nothing in the said footage, be it taken in isolation or in relation to the
narrated Vidal report, can be viewed as reputation impeaching; it did not
contain an attack, let alone a false one, on the honesty, character or integrity
or like personal qualities of any of the respondents, who were not even
named or specifically identified in the telecast. It has been said that if the
matter is not per se libelous, malice cannot be inferred from the mere fact of
publication. And as records tend to indicate, the petitioners particularly Vidal
do not personally know or had dealings with any of the respondents. The
Court thus perceives no reason or motive on part of either petitioner for
malice. The respondents too had failed to substantiate by preponderant
evidence that petitioners were animated by a desire to inflict them
unjustifiable harm or at least to place them in a discomforting light.

Doctrine

"An award of damages under the premises presupposes the commission of an

act amounting to defamatory imputation or libel, which, in turn, presupposes malice.
Libel is the public and malicious imputation to another of a discreditable act or
condition tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person." Liability for libel attaches present the following elements: (a) an allegation or
imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of
the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.

"Malice or ill-will in libel must either be proven (malice in fact) or may be taken
for granted in view of the grossness of the imputation (malice in law). Malice, as we
wrote in Brillante v. Court of Appeals, is a term used to indicate the fact that the
offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty,
but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed. Malice implies an intention
to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm."

"Privileged matters may be absolute or qualified. Absolutely privileged matters

are not actionable regardless of the existence of malice in fact. In absolutely
privileged communications, the mala or bona fides of the author is of no moment as
the occasion provides an absolute bar to action... On the other hand, in qualifiedly or
conditionally privileged communications, freedom from liability for an otherwise
defamatory utterance is conditioned on absence of express malice (malice in fact)."