G.R. No. 2033. September 19, 1905

This is an action for libel. The article in question was written in
the Visayan language, and published in that language in a newspaper of
Cebu, called “Ang Suga.” In the court below some question was made as
to the accuracy of the translation of the article into Spanish, but the
appellant, in his brief in this court, waives such objections. The
article thus translated is as follows:

“Carta de Dumanjug Sr. D. Vicente Sotto, Director de Ang Suga. Respetable Senor: Cuando lei el articulo que se ocupaba de mi persona en el Num. 120 del periodico Ang Suga,
el que aqui apreciamos, me vi obligado a tomar la pluma, para
manifestarle unas cuantas palabras para reprehender las mentiras de
Rufina Causin, palabras que le suplico se sirva insertar en su
periodico.

“Es ima mentira, Sr. Director, el que yo la haya
arrestado y aprisionado por tres dias. En la mafiana de un Domingo 20
de Julio el Consejo Municipal de este pueblo se reunio en sesion para
tratar de diferentes asuntos; y entre ellos uno, referente a la
Senorita Rufina Causin, maestro, que se vio obligada a dirigirse a este
pequeno pueblo despues de haber sido ‘celebre o famosa’ en Iloilo;
porque en los anos pasados creo que fue Directora de un Colegio
ensenando muchas asignaturas y entre ellas, ‘Musica, Pintura y Dibujo’
y en este ultimo, para que veamos su fa ma en aquel Colegio, me han
informado que la ayudaba un Sr. muy conocido, llamado E. Lanza.

“De
lo que se trato sobre esta ‘Santolona’ mujer, era acerca de la
ferocidad con que trataba a las ninas en la Escuela: bofeteaba,
pellizcaba, desgarraba los cabellos de las ninas que cometiesen alguna
falta, sea de cual fuere; como el Consejo de este pueblo comprende, que
si les esta mandado por el Codigo, el domar las ferocidades de un
animal, pues con mas razon se debia domar las ferocidades de un hombre
o mujer; puesto que este es mayor en dignidad, aunque no haya pasado
por ser ‘profesora’ de un Colegio para la ensenanza del ‘dibujo’
ayudado por E. Lanza.

“Asi es que el Consejo averiguo la
declaracion de los hechos de la Senorita Rufina Causin en la Escuela; y
para este me dijeron que mandase llamar, las chiquillas que fueron
maltratadas, asi como quien las maltrato.

“Cuando yo la mande
llamar aquella mafiana, pues cumplia con la voluntad del Consejo, para
que ella compareciese un ratito ante la Junta, para oir las acusaciones
que se la hacia, y para que ella manifestara su defensa y razones para
que asi se viese si era o no verdad las acusaciones hechas por las
chiquillas.

“Pues creo que sera, esto lo que querra decir o
llamar la Sra. Pinay ‘prision’ que se impuso a su santa y respetable
persona por espacio de tres dias. Porque si esto no es, pues ya no hay
otro. Aqui estan los Concejales, Aguacil, Carceloro, todo el pueblo y
hasta el Padre con quien vive esta Maestra, pueden ser preguntados si
es o no verdad lo que acusa. ‘Esta hipocrita Srita.’ de mi empleo, y ya
que de el no soy digno.

“No quiero arrebatarle mas tiempo,
Sr. Director, y mucho mas porque este asunto ya se halla en manos del
Juzgado. Pues ya alia manifestare todas mis razones; y por ahora basta
con lo que tengo dicho, para recobrar un poco de mi honra perdida, en
un articulo publicado en el Ang Suga, en un numero del 30 de
Julio proximo pasado; y le repito se sirva publicar el presente en su
periodico. Fortunato Ricamora, Presidente de Dumanjug.”

This article was written by the defendant, and sent by him to the
newspaper in question. Judgment was rendered by the court below in
favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 1,200 Mexican pesos. The
defendant moved for a new trial. That motion was denied by the court
below. He excepted to this order of the court, and also to the judgment
and has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.

Section 1 of Act No. 277 of the Commission declares that every
writing is libelous which exposes a person to public hatred, contempt,
or ridicule. A simple reading of the article in question shows that it
falls within this definition.

The appellant claims that the publication of the article was
justified, because it appears in the case that about a month before it
appeared, there was published in the same newspaper a statement that
the defendant had arrested and detained the plaintiff for three days,
and that the manager of the paper had written to the defendant telling
him that he thought that this statement ought to be answered. These
facts did not justify the defendant in libeling the plaintiff.

The fifth finding of fact of the court below is as follows:

“5.° Esta probado que la demandante ganaba como
maestra treinta pesos al mes y que ha perdido su empleo por causa de
dicho libelo, tanto por la publicidad de su publicacion, como por los
sufrimientos fisicos y morales, que la han sido ocasionados, privandola
de la aptitud fisiea necesaria para dedicarse a su profesion.”

It appears that after the publication of this article the plaintiff
was discharged from her employment as a school teacher by the
superintendent in charge. We think that the evidence sufficiently
supports this finding of fact. The appellant also alleges that there
was no proof of the damages which the plaintiff had suffered by reason
of the publication of the article. Section 11 of said Act No. 277
provides as follows:

“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.”

The evidence in this case was ample to show that the plaintiff had
suffered such damages as are referred to in this action, and to the
amount found by the court below.

The judgment of the court below was for 1,200 Mexican pesos, and the
judgment is modified so as to require the payment of the equivalent of
that sum in Philippine currency. As so modified the judgment is
affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and
after the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in
accordance herewith, and the case remanded to the inferior court for
execution of said judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.