DOMINGO IMPERIAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. VENANCIO P. ZIGA AND ANASTACIA V. DE MUÑOZ, DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY APOLONIO R. MUÑOZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal, by both parties, from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Albay finding defendants Venancio P. Ziga and Anastacia V. de Muñoz liable for
libel and sentenc­ing them to pay, jointly and severally, to plaintiff Domin­go
Imperial, the sum of P20,000 as moral damages, and to bear the costs, as well
as dismissing defendants’ counter­claim.

This is an action by Domingo Imperial against Venancio
P. Ziga, Lorenzo P. Ziga, Anastacia V. de Muñoz and Alfredo
Caldino to recover P500,000 as moral damages and
P100,000 as exemplary or corrective damages, plus interest and costs.  In their
joint answer, the first three (3) defendants set up a counterclaim for P500,000
each, as moral damages, and P200,000 as “corrective penalty”,
plaintiff’s action having been allegedly brought maliciously.  Soon, later, Lorenzo P. Ziga
died, in view of which the case was dismissed, insofar as he is concerned.  The case was, likewise, dismissed as against
Alfredo Caldino, upon motion filed by him and
plaintiff Im­perial.  Thereafter, the
action proceeded only against Venan­cio P. Ziga and Anastacia V. de Muñoz – hereinafter referred to as Mrs. Muñoz
– with the result already adverted to.

Plaintiff’s action is mainly based upon the publication of:  (1) a mimeographed copy of an article,
entitled “History of the Last Elections in Albay“, by-lined “By Gov.
Venancio P. Ziga“, and marked as Exhibit F; (2) a certified copy
of a letter, dated March 31, 1952, subscribed and sworn to by Mrs. Muñoz, addressed to the Commission on Appointments, and
mark­ed as Exhibit N, photostatic copy of the
original of which is Exhibit C; and (3) a certified copy of a letter of Mrs. Muñoz,
bearing the same date, likewise, addressed to the Com­mission on Appointments,
and marked as Exhibit Q, photostatic copy of the
original of which is Exhibit T.

Exhibit F purports to explain the reason for the alleged
“hostility of the Imperials – referring particularly to plaintiff Domingo
Imperial – “against the Zigas“, stating
that it is due to the desire of the Imperials “to perpetuate them­selves
in leadership” and the failure of Venancio P. Ziga, as Governor of Albay, to
acquiesce to be a “tool” or “rubber stamp” of the
Imperials, in connection with the lease of the public market site at Legaspi Port, and the lease of the fishery and the
slaughter house privileges in Legaspi, to
“dummies of the
Imperials”.

Upon the other hand,
Exhibit N asserts, inter alia, that
“Hon. Domingo Imperial lacks honesty and integrity of character”;
that “he committed treachery and sabotage against the Liberal Party, while
he was x x x acting as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections”; that “he not only used his
posi­tion, but, also, gave away money and other goods in order to fix the
elections in Albay in favor of the Nacionalistas“; that “acting under his
instructions, his wife x x x
and other relatives actively campaigned in Albay against the Liberal Party, especially
against Ex-Governor Venancio P. Ziga“;
that, among said relatives of the plaintiff were some of his employees
in the Commission on Elections, as well as a civil service employee in the
Public Service Commission and a clerk in the Court of Appeals; that “the
reason for the enmity of Hon. Domingo Imperial against Ex-Governor Ziga” is “because as Provincial Governor of Albay, Gover­nor Ziga refused to
be cowed and to be dictated by the Im­perials” or to be his
“tool” in connection with “illegal, illicit or immoral
transactions”, such as a resolution, ap­proved by the municipal council of
Legaspi, upon plaintiff’s instructions, leasing part
of the Legaspi market site, for a nominal sum, to a
dummy of the Imperials, which resolution, like two (2) other resolutions of the
same council, giving the fishery privileges and the slaughter house privileges,
at nominal fees, to dummies of the Imperials, were disap­proved by Governor Ziga, because, “contrary to his oath of office x x x and x x
x to his conscience”, plaintiff “does not
want honest and good officials in the Government service.  He wants public officials who serve their own
selfish interests.  He wants corrupt
officials to take ad­vantage of their positions to enrich themselves and their
relatives at the expense of the government”; that “nepotism has been
his norm of conduct thereby benefiting only his close kin and relatives”;
that while he was “Minister of Bangkok and to Indonesia x x x his family and other close
relatives were seen going around x x x selling wrist wat­ches, jewelry and Indonesian
silks”; that, “as Senator x x sometime
ago”, he “secured x x x
twenty (20) bales of UNRRA clothing destined to be distributed to the poor peo­ple
of the Philippines,” but, instead, he caused the bales to be opened and
“sorted out the good clothing”, then “gave some to his family
and the rest, sold to the public, x x x leaving only for distribution to the poor the remaining
little clothing that were really useless”; that plaintiff “miserably
lacks nobleness and decency in his conduct as public official”; that when
a jobless young man sought his recommendation for a job in Manila, plaintiff
refused to help him “unless his father x x x would surrender to him (plaintiff) politically and
campaign against Ziga in the last elections”;
and that plaintiff dismissed without cause a female employee of the Commission
on Elections merely be­cause her parents had not followed “the political
dictates of Imperial in the last elections”.

Similarly, Exhibit Q states, among other things, that, “as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections”, plaintiff had sent to the Bicol provinces “false ballots, similar to the
official” ones, on which the names of the Nacionalista
candidates had already been written; that these false ballots were used as
“lanzaderas“, to be exchanged with official
ballots during the canvass; that plaintiff is “a man who throws stones
with a hidden hand”; that he “turned traitor to the Liberal
Party”; that “as Minister in Bangkok, Thai­land”, he had done
nothing “except some business which he (Imperial) smuggled from Bangkok x x x Indonesia in the form of wrist watches, jewelry
and embroidered clothes which he sold here at an enormous profit.”

Appellants do not deny
the libelous nature of these imputations, but they:  (1) question the sufficiency of the evidence
on the authorship thereof; and (2) invoke their alleged privileged character.

As above indicated,
Exhibit F is a mimeographed copy of an article, entitled “History of the
Last Elections in Albay“, by-lined,” By
Gov. Venancio P. Ziga”
and written about the early part of 1950. 
Its subject is the very topic of his political speeches in the 1949
elections, dur­ing which his brother
Lorenzo, now deceased, ran for Con­gress, and lost to Eulogio
Lawengco, who, the Zigas
sus­pected, was supported by plaintiff herein. 
In this con­nection, Antonio Rito testified
that, early in 1950, he saw a copy of Exhibit F on top of the desk of Venancio P. Ziga, as Provincial Governor of Albay; that there
were about 100 copies thereof in
the latter’s office; and that he (Rito) then heard Venancio order the mailing and distribution thereof.  Similarly, Jesus Salalima
declared that, after a conference held
in said office, sometime in August, 1951, Venancio P.
Ziga gave him said Exhibit F, which he (Salalima) readily mailed to plaintiff herein.  Obviously, Venancio
P. Ziga is the author of said article and the one
who had caused the same to be
distributed and published.

How about Exhibits N and Q?  Both
were sent to the Commission on Appointments when it was considering plaintiff’s appointment as Chairman
of the Commission on Elec­tions.  Evidently, Exhibit N was supposed to replace Exhibit Q, for the contents of both are about the same, except that Exhibit N includes more charges than those made in Exhibit Q.  Although admittedly, signed by Mrs. Muñoz, the
lower court found that Venancio P. Ziga is the
real author thereof and that Mrs. Muñoz had merely acted as his tool, by
lending her name and signature thereon. 
Upon a review of the
record, we do not find therein sufficient justification to disturb this
conclusion.

Indeed, according to then
Congressman Espinosa, of Mas­bate, in March, 1952,
then Congressman Lorenzo P. Ziga, now deceased and brother of Venancio P. Ziga, told him
(Espinosa), in the presence of other members of Congress, that plaintiff had
sent to Albay already filled in ballots, in order to
in­sure the election of Manuel Calleja as Governor in
1951, and that the Zigas were going to file the
corresponding complaint against the offenders, especially plaintiff herein.

Furthermore, Congressman Galias, of Sorsogon, declared that late in March, 1952, Congressman
Lorenzo P. Ziga urged him to oppose the confirmation
of plaintiff’s appointment by the Commission on Elections, for he (Congressman Ziga) and his brother, Venancio
P. Ziga, were going to file charges against him
(plaintiff) with the Commission on Appointments, one of which was that, shortly
before the 1951 elections, plaintiff had sent to Albay,
from 10 to 12 thousand ballots already filled with the names of Nacionalista candidates and that, a few days prior to the
meeting of said Commission on Appointments, Congressman Ziga
reiterated the request that he (Galias) object to
plaintiff’s confirmation, inasmuch as charges had already been preferred against him before said
body.

Again, soon after the
1951 elections, Miguel Bustamante was informed by Venancio P. Ziga
that, with the help of his brother, Lorenzo P. Ziga,
he (Venancio P. Ziga) would
file with the Commission on Appointments a protest against plain­tiff’s
appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Elections, because his (Venancio P. Ziga’s) defeat in
said elections was due to the numerous ballots, already filled with names of Nacionalista candidates, allegedly sent to Albay by the plain­tiff.

In other words, there is sufficient evidence to warrant the
conclusion that Venancio P. Ziga
had caused Exhibits N and Q to be made and then signed by Mrs. Muñoz, as well as sent to the Commission on Appointments.

Upon the other
hand, it is clear that Exhibit F is not privileged
at all.  Indeed, appellants do not
claim it to be so.  With respect to
Exhibits N and Q, the originals thereof had been sent to the Commission on
Appointments, in connection with plaintiff’s appointment as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections, which was pending confirmation before said body, thus
giving to both documents the color of qualified privileged communications.  It should be noted, however, that, pursuant
to Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, “every defamatory imputation is
presumed to be mali­cious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive far making it is shown”. 
Although said presumption is inapplicable to “a private
communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty”, the record satisfactorily shows that Ex­hibits N
and Q had been made and sent to the Commission on Appointments with actual
malice on the part of both Mrs. Muñoz and appellant Venancio P. Ziga, and for the
purpose of besmirching plaintiff’s reputation and exposing him to ridicule and
contempt.

To begin with, there is the circumstance that Venancio
P. Ziga had tried to conceal the identity of the true
maker of said documents, by causing Mrs. Muñoz to
sign the same, instead of doing so himself. 
Besides, the defendants have not attempted to prove the truth of the
imputations therein made, or, at least, that they – particularly Mrs. Muñoz ? had reasonable grounds to believe them to be
true.  Indeed, the nature of the
imputations is such and the language used so intemperate as to indicate that
defendants could not have earnestly believed them to be true or even
approximately true, and that they – especially Venancio
P. Ziga – were merely giving vent to their extreme
bitterness against plaintiff herein.

This inference becomes even more imperative when we consider that
there is no competent evidence that plaintiff was financially interested in the
lease either of the mar­ket site or of the fishery or slaughter house
privileges in Legaspi; that, according to the
municipal treasurer of Legaspi from 1921 to 1941 and
assistant provincial treasurer and cashier of Albay
from 1941 to 1952, plaintiff had never interested himself in seeking or
intervening in any applica­tion for market privileges in Legaspi;
that plaintiff’s wife was in Manila during the election campaign in 1951; that
she never campaigned, even when her husband was running for a public office;
that there is reliable and uncontradicted evidence
that plaintiff had always abstained from partici­pating in the proceedings in
the Commission on Elections in any matter affecting elections, not only in the
province of Albay, but, also, in the entire Bicol region, precisely to avoid any possible suspicion and
to maintain public con­fidence in said Commission; that plaintiff was,
moreover, instrumental in stopping gem smuggling in Bangkok; that the persons named
in Exhibits N and Q, in connection with the charge of nepotism, were either not
appointed by plaintiff or not related to him, or their relationship is beyond
the prohibited degree, or the position involved is beyond the
scope of the pertinent executive order; and that there is no competent evidence
on the alleged irregularities in connection with UNRR goods.

Then, again,
independently of Exhibits N and
Q, the article Exhibit F
suffices to support plaintiff’s action against Venancio
P. Ziga.

It is thus clear that the lower court was justified in finding for plaintiff herein and in sentencing
the defendants to pay him the sum of
P20,000 as moral damages.

Plaintiff, in turn,
contends that he is, also,
entitled to exemplary damages and that the defendants should, further, be
sentenced to pay interest on the amount or amounts adjudi­cated to him.  With respect to the exemplary damages, its re­covery is not a matter of
right (article 2233, Civil Code of the Philippines) and the records do not show that the lower
court had abused its discretion in not awarding it.^[1]
Indeed, considering that plaintiff’s
appointment had eventual­ly been confirmed, we are satisfied that the sum of
P20,000.00 adjudged in his favor, by way of moral damages, meets suffi­ciently
the demands of justice.

As regards interest on the aforementioned sum, the cases of Lopez
vs. Pan American World Airways^[2]
and M. Ruiz Highway Transit
vs. Court of Appeals^[3]
sanction the collection of the legal rate of interest from the promulgation of
the deci­sion appealed from, on December
10, 1959.

Inasmuch as Mrs. Muñoz has died
meanwhile, his surviv­ing spouse Apolonio R. Muñoz has substituted her, as one of the defendants
herein.  The Court, likewise, takes
judicial cognizance of the fact that Domingo Imperial has, also, pass­ed
away.  Accordingly, it is hereby decreed
that his legal representative or heirs be substituted in his stead, as
plaintiff herein.

Thus modified, as regards the parties, as well as in the sense that defendants shall pay the
legal rate of interest on the sum of P20,000, from December 10, 1959,
the decision appealed from should, therefore, be, as it is hereby affirmed in
all other respects, with costs against defendants-appellants Venancio P. Ziga and Apolonio R. Muñoz.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., took no part.

^[1]
Singson vs. Aragon,
49 Off. Gaz., 515; Goleongco
vs. Clarapols, L-19616, March 31, 1964; Laguna Tayabas
Bus Co. vs. Diasanta, L-19882, June 30, 1964;
Corpus vs. Cuaderno, L-23721, March 31, 1965.

^[2]
L-22415, March 30, 1966.

^[3]
L-16086, May 29, 1964.