G.R. No. 20644. October 08, 1923

STATEMENT

The defendant is the owner and publisher of the newspaper known as “Taliba,”
which is printed in Tagalog. In its issue of May 2, 1922, appeared an article
which, translated into English, reads as follows:

“CHINAMAN THAT STABBED ANOTHER WITH A KITCHEN KNIFE

“Because of the girl named Eustaquia de la Cruz, with whom Victoriano Morales
lived as his querida, this (Victoriano Morales) was brought to the
General Hospital for wounds inflicted by a Chinaman named Juan Phee on his
fore-head, neck and left shoulder.

“This bloody occurrence occurred at Calle Elcano No. 2137, Binondo, at about
7:30 last night.

“According to the investigation made it was discovered that Eustaquia has
been living with the said Chinaman for 17 years and as a result seven children
were born to them. During the latter part of last month Eustaquia came to know
that Juan Phee has wife in China, and so she left said Juan Phee to live with a
man named Victoriano (Morales).

“Last night the Chinaman made a visit to the house where Eustaquia was living
and found Victoriano talking with Eustaquia. Phee felt jealous and stabbed
Victoriano with his knife, producing as a consequence several wounds.

“The Chinaman was arrested and charged with frustrated
homicide.”

May 3d, the plaintiff brought this action alleging the publication of the
article that it was libelous, defamatory and untrue, by reason of which he was
damaged in the sum of P10,000, for which amount he prays judgment with
costs.

May 20, 1922, the defendant filed an answer, in which it denied each and
every one of the allegations of the complaint.

As a result of the trial upon such issues, the court rendered judgment in
favor of the defendant and for costs. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial
on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, and
that it was against the law, which was overruled. From which ruling the
plaintiff appeals, assigning the following errors:

“1. The court erred in refusing to find for plaintiff in accordance with the
prayer of the complaint.

“2. The court erred in admitting Exhibit 1 of defendant as a complete defense
of defendant from paying damages.

“3. The court erred in finding that plaintiff did not ask for retraction of
the libelous article published.

“4. The court erred in finding that the defendant acted without malicious
intent.

“5. The court erred in finding that the damages prayed for in the complaint
have not been proven.

“6. The court erred in sustaining that the plaintiff was not injured in this
case.

“7. The court erred in absolving the defendant from
damages.”

JOHNS, J.:

Under all of the authorities, the article was libelous per se.
Although newspapers are in a privileged class, and the freedom of the press is
recognized by all the courts, that does not give any newspaper the legal right
to publish an article which is libelous per se about any person. Although
the plaintiff did not make any formal demand on the defendant for the retraction
of the article, it appears that he went to the office of the newspaper and told
the employees that it was a case of a mistake in identity, and that he was not
the person who committed the acts alleged in the published article. The
defendant did not pay any attention to what he said and ignored him, and never
at any time published an article of retraction, or admitted that it was a
mistake. It is true that the complaint was filed upon the following day, but it
is also true that the defendant could have acknowledged its error at any time
after the complaint was filed. That was not done. The real defense is that the
plaintiff was not injured by the publication of the article, and, for such
reason, he was not entitled to any damage, and, in legal effect, that was the
finding of the trial court.

It appears that at previous times, the plaintiff had been convicted of the
crimes of estafa, theft and violation of the Opium Law, for which he had
served his time in Bilibid. But, having suffered the penalties, he was then a
free man. That defense would tend to destroy his character and reputation, and
would go to the mitigation of damages, but would not be a complete defense to
the action, and would not legally justify the defendant in the publication of an
article libelous per se.

At the trial the defendant contended that the publication of the article was
an honest mistake. But even so, that would be considered only in mitigation of
damages where the article is libelous per se. Under all of the
authorities, where the publication of the article is libelous per se, an
honest mistake is not a complete defense. Neither in such a case is the
plaintiff required to introduce evidence of actual damages, as a condition
precedent to the recovery of some damages. Where the article is libelous per
se, the law implies damages. In such a case evidence of an honest mistake or
the want of character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation
of damages.

In the instant case, after the attention of the defendant was called to the
fact that a mistake had been made, no effort was made to correct the mistake. In
legal effect, the defendant contends that, because the plaintiff had been
convicted of previous crimes, that would constitute a complete defense to the
action. That is not the law. It matters not how low any person may be, no
newspaper has any legal right to publish an article about him which is libelous
per se.

The record shows that even though the article was libelous per se, the
plaintiff has not suffered any substantial or material damages to either his
feelings or reputation.

Section 11 of Act No. 277, known as the Libel Law, provides:

“In addition to the criminal action hereby prescribed, a right of civil
action is also hereby given to any person libeled as hereinbefore set forth
against the person libeling him for damages sustained by such libel, and the
person so libeled shall be entitled to recover in such civil action not only the
actual pecuniary damages sustained by him but also damages for injury to his
feelings and reputation, and in addition such punitive damages as the court may
think will be a just punishment to the libeler and an example to others. * *
*”

Applying that section, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and one
will be entered here in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the
sum of P50, together with costs in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant in both this and the lower court. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J.,
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.