LUMEN POLICARPIO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and defendants’ counterclaim, without
special pronouncement as to costs. Originally certified to the Court of
Appeals, the record on appeal was subsequently forwarded to us in view
of the amount involved in the complaint (P300,000.00).

Plaintiff Lumen Policarpio seeks to recover P150,000.00, as actual
damages, P70,000, as moral damages, P60,000, as correctional and
exemplary damages, and P20,000, as attorney’s fees, aside from the
costs, by reason of the publication in the Saturday Mirror of August
11, 1956, and in The Daily Mirror of August 13,1956, of two (2)
articles or news items which are claimed to be per se
defamatory, libelous and false, and to have exposed her to ridicule,
jeopardized her integrity, good name and business and official
transactions, and caused her grave embarrassment, untold and extreme
moral, mental and physical anguish and incalculable material, moral,
professional and business damages. The defendants are The Manila Times
Publishing Co., Inc., as publisher of The Saturday Mirror and The Daily
Mirror, which are newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines,
and Constante C. Roldan, Manuel V. Villa-Real, E. Aguilar Cruz and
Consorcio Borje as the reporter or author of the first article and the
managing editor, the associate editor and the news editor,
respectively, of said newspapers.

After its motion to dismiss the complaint had been denied by the
Court of First Instance of Manila, in which the present action was
initiated, the defendants filed a joint answer admitting the formal
allegations of the complaint, denying the other allegations thereof,
alleging special defenses and setting up a counterclaim for P10,000, as
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. In due course, later on,
said court rendered the aforementioned decision, upon the ground that
plaintiff had not proven that defendants had acted maliciously in
publishing the aforementioned articles, although portions thereof were
inaccurate or false.

Plaintiff is a member of the Philippine bar. On August 11 and 13,
1956, and for sometime prior thereto, she was executive secretary of
the local UNESCO National Commission. As such officer, she had
preferred charges against Herminia D. Reyes, one of her subordinates in
said Commission, and caused her to be separated from the service. Miss
Reyes, in turn, preferred counter-charges which were referred to Col.
Crisanto V. Alba, a Special Investigator in the Office of the
President. Pending completion of the administrative investigation,
which began in June, 1956, Miss Reyes filed with the Office of the City
Fiscal of Manila, on August 8, 1956, a complaint against the plaintiff
for alleged malversation of public funds and another complaint for
alleged estafa thru falsification of public documents, which were
scheduled for investigation by said office on August 22, 1956, at 2:00
p.m. Meanwhile, or on August 11, 1956, the following appeared, with a
picture of the plaintiff, in the front page of The Saturday Mirror:

“WOMAN OFFICIAL SUED

PCAC RAPS L. POLICARPIO ON FRAUDS
Unesco Official Head Accused on Supplies, Funds Use by-Colleague

By Constante C. Roldan

“Lumen Policarpio, executive secretary of the Unesco
national commission here, was charged with malversation and estafa in
complaints filed with the city fiscal’s office by the Presidential
Complaints and Action Commission today.

“The Criminal action
was Initiated a3 a result of current administrative investigation
against the Unesco official being conducted by Col. Crisanto V. Alba,
Malacanan technical assistant, on charges filed by Herminia D. Reyes, a
Unesco confidential assistant. The Unesco commission functions under
the Office of the President.

“Fiscal Manases G. Reyes, to
whom the cases were assigned, immediately scheduled
preliminary«investigation of the charges on August 22 at 2 p.m. Colonel
Alba, in turn, indicated that the administrative phase of the inquiry
will continue Monday and then resume on August 21 at Malacanan Park.
The Palace Investigator said there are other charges, but would not
specify these.

“AIba said Miss Reyes had testified on
circumstances supposedly substantiating the malversation charge.
Testimony had allegedly indicated that the accused had used Unesco
stencils for private and personal purposes. Specification reputedly
said that Miss Policarpio had taken stencils from the Unesco storeroom
and used these for French lessons not at all connected with Unesco
work; for the preparation of contracts of sale pianos in her business
establishments; for preparation of invitations sent to members of the
League of Women Voters of which she is one of the officers.

“Cited
as witnesses on this charge are Miss Reyes, Francisco Manalo of Barrio
Salabat, Taal, Batangas, Federico Vergara and Pablo Armesto both of the
Unesco.

“Regarding the charge of estafa through falsification
of public documents allegedly also committed sometime in 1955, Miss
Policarpio was accused of having collected expenses for supposed trips.
The accusation said the Unesco official had sought reimbursement of
expenses for a trip to Baler, Quezon, on Aug. 19, last year,
representing expenses of her car when in fact she supposedly rode in an
army plane.

“Testimony indicated that a newspaper-woman who
was a supposed co-passenger had even written about the plane trip in
her newspaper column. The same voucher also allegedly collected
expenses for going to a Unesco Bayambang (Pangasinan) project, although
records reputedly showed that she was absent in that conference.

“Witnesses
cited on the charge include Aurelio Savalbaro, a Philippine Air Force
pilot, Lt. Clemente Antonio and other3, also of the PAF.

“Miss
Policarpio becomes the second high-ranking woman government official to
face charges involving financial disbursements in. their office. The
first was Sen. Pacita M. Gonzales who is still under charge of
mis-spending funds of the Social Welfare Administration and the UNAC
while she had charge of these.

“The complainant, Miss Reyes,
was earlier ordered relieved from her Unesco post by Miss Poliearpio on
charges including conduct ‘unbecoming a lady’, and as a result had not
been paid her salary. She appealed to Malacanan which dismissed her
suit and later she sued before Judge Rafael Amparo to compel payment of
her salary. The court also rejected her plea on the ground that she had
not exhausted all administrative remedies, the Palace not having made a
clearcut decision on her case.”

The Daily Mirror of August 13, 1956, likewise, carried on its first
page—with a picture of plaintiff and of Miss Reyes, taken during the
administrative investigation being conducted by Col. Alba—another news
item, reading:

“PALACE OPENS INVESTIGATION OF RAPS AGAINST
POLICARPIO

Alba Probes Administrative Phase of Fraud Charges
Against Unesco Woman Official; Fiscal Sets Prelim Quiz
Of Criminal Suit on Aug. 22

“The administrative phase of two-pronged
investigation of Miss Lumen Poliearpio, head of the Unesco national
commission here, opened in Malacanan before Col. Crisanto V. Alba.

“The
judicial inquiry of charges filed by Herminia D. Reyes, also the
complainant in the Malacanan case before the Presidential Complaints
and Action Commission, will be conducted by Fiscal Manases G. Reyes on
Aug. 22 at 2 p.m.

“Miss Policarpio stands accused by Reyes of
having malversed public property and of having fraudulently sought
reimbursement of supposed official expenses.

“Colonel Alba,
at the start of his investigation at the Malacanan Park, clarified that
neither he nor the PCAC had initiated the criminal action before the
city fiscal’s office. The complaint before the fiscal was started by an
information sheet naming Herminia D. Reyes as complainant and citing
other persons as witnesses. Fiscal Reyes set preliminary investigation
of these charges foe Aug. 22.

“Miss Reyes, technical
assistant of the Unesco, stated at the Palace inquiry that during 1956
Miss Poliearpio allegedly used several sheets of government stencils
for her private and personal use, such as for French lessons, contracts
of sale of pianos and for invitations of the League of Woman Voters of
which she (Miss Poliearpio) is an officer. The Unesco commission here
functions under the Office of the President.

“The charge was filed with the PCAC, and the FCAC endorsed it to Colonel Alba for investigation.

“Miss
Policarpio this morning was not represented by any lawyer. Federico
Diaz, lawyer representing complainant Miss Reyes, petitioned for the
suspension of Miss Policarpio, executive secretary of the Unesco.

“Alba did not act immediately on the petition. He said he was holding a hearing on the petition on August 15.

“During
this morning’s investigation three witnesses appeared. The first
witness was Atty. Antonio Lopez of the PCAC who brought with him 18
sheets of stencil which were allegedly used by Miss Policarpio for her
personal use. These sheets were admitted as temporary exhibits.

“The
second witness was Federico Vergara of the Unesco who said that he
received four of the 18 sheets, but he could not identify which of the
sheets he had received.

“The third witness was Francisco Manalo who certified on the charge of oppression in office against Miss Policarpio.

“The
other charge of Miss Reyes corresponded to supposed reimbursements
sought by Miss Policarpio for a trip to Quezon Province and to
Pangasinan. On the first, Miss Reyes’ complaint alleged the Unesco
official had asked for refund of expenses for use of her car when, Miss
Reyes claimed, she had actually made the trip aboard an army plane.

“Miss
Reyes also said Miss Policarpio was absent from the Bayambang
conference for which she also sought allegedly refund of expenses.

“The
complainant had previously been ordered relieved of her Unesco post by
Miss Policarpio and had later sued at the Palace and before the Court
for payment of her salary.”

The title of the article of August 11, 1956—”Woman official
sued”—was given prominence with a 6-column (about 11 inches) banner
headline of one-inch types. Admittedly, its sub-title—”PCAC raps L.
Policarpio on fraud” —printed in bold one-centimeter types, is not
true. Similarly, the statement in the first paragraph of the article,
to the effect that plaintiff “was charged with malversation and estafa
in complaints filed with the city fiscal’s office by the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission”—
otherwise known as PCAC—is untrue, the complaints for said offenses
having been filed by Miss Reyes. Neither is it true that said “criminal
action was initiated as a result of current administrative investigation” as stated in the second paragraph of the same article.

Plaintiff maintains that the effect of these false statements was to
give the general impression that said investigation by Col. Alba had
shown that plaintiff was guilty, or, at least, probably guilty of the
crimes aforementioned, and that, as a consequence, the PCAC had filed
the corresponding complaints with the city fiscal’s office. She
alleges, also, that although said article indicates that the charges
for malversation and for estafa through falsification against her
referred, respectively, to the use by her of UNESCO stencils allegedly
for private and personal purposes, and to the collection of
transportation expenses, it did not mention the fact that the number of
stencils involved in the charge was only 18 or 20, that the sum
allegedly misappropriated by her was only P54, and that the
falsification imputed to her was said to have been committed by
claiming that certain expenses for which she had sought and secured
reimbursement were incurred in trips during the period from July 1,
1955 to September 30, 1955, although the trips actually were made,
according to Miss Reyes, from July 8 to August 31, 1955. By omitting
these details, plaintiff avers, the article of August 11, 1956, had the
effect of conveying the idea that the offenses imputed to her were more
serious than they really were. Plaintiff, likewise, claims that there
are other inaccuracies in the news item of August 13, 1956, but, we do
not deem it necessary to dwell upon the same for the determination of
this case.

Upon the other hand, defendants contend that, although the
complaints in the city fiscal’s office were filed, not by the PCAC, but
by Miss Reyes, this inaccuracy is insignificant and immaterial to the
case, for the fact is that said complaints were filed with said office.
As regards the number of sheets of stencil allegedly misused and the
amount said to have been misappropriated by plaintiff, as well as the
nature of the falsification imputed to her, defendants argue that these
“details” do not affect the truthfulness of the article as a whole, and
that, in any event, the insignificant value of said sheets of stencil
and the small amount allegedly misappropriated, would have had, if set
forth in said article, a greater derogatory effect upon the plaintiff,
aside from the circumstance that defendants had no means of knowing
such “details”.

It appears, however, that prior to August 11, 1956, Col. Alba had
already taken the testimony of Antonio P. Lopez, Francisco Manalo and
Federico Vergara, as witnesses for Miss Reyes- Hence, defendants could
have ascertained the “details” aforementioned, had they wanted to.
Indeed, some of the defendants and/or their representatives had made
appropriate inquiries from Col. Alba before said date, and some
“details”—though not those adverted to above—appear in the article then
published, whereas the number of sheets of stencil allegedly misused
was mentioned in the news item of August 13, 1956.

Moreover, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime either of
estafa or of embezzlement depends partly upon the amount of the damage
caused to the offended party (Articles 315 to 318, Revised Penal Code).
Hence, the amount or value of the property embezzled is material to
said offense.

Again, it is obvious that the filing of criminal complaints with the
city fiscal’s office by another agency of the Government, like the
PCAC, particularly after an investigation conducted by the same,
imparts the idea that the probability of guilt on the part of the
accused is greater than when the complaints are filed by a private
individual, specially when the latter is a former subordinate of the
alleged offender, who was responsible for the dismissal of the
complainant from her employment. It is only too apparent that the
article published on August 11, 1956, presented the plaintiff in a more
unfavorable light than she actually was.

It goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain degree
of discretion in determining the manner in which a given event should
be presented to the public, and the importance to be attached thereto
as a news item, and that its presentation in a sensational manner is
not per se illegal. Newspaper may publish news items relative
to Judicial, legislative or other official proceedings, which are not
of confidential nature, because the public is entitled to know the truth with
respect to such proceedings, which, being official and
non-confidential, are open to public consumption. But, to enjoy
immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without any comments or remarks.

Defendants maintain that their alleged malice in publishing the news
items in question has not been established by the plaintiff. However,
Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, provides:

“Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

“1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

“2.
A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings
which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report of
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of other functions.”

In the case at bar, aside from containing information derogatory to
the plaintiff, the article published on August 11, 1956, presented her
in a worse predicament than that in which she, in fact, was. In other
words, said article was not a fair and true report of the proceedings
therein alluded to. What is more, its subtitle—:”PCAC raps L.
Policarpio on fraud”—is a comment or remark, besides being false.
Accordingly, the defamatory imputations contained in said article are “presumed to be malicious.”

Then too, how could defendants claim to have acted with good
intentions or justifiable motive in falsely stating that the complaints
had been fled with the Office of the City Fiscal by the PCAC as a
result of the administrative investigation of Col. Alba? Either they
knew the truth about it or they did not know it. If they did, then the
publication would be actually malicious. If they did not, or if they
acted under a misapprehension of the facts, they were guilty of
negligence in making said statement, for the consequences of which they
are liable solidarity (Articles 2176, 2194, 2208 and 2219[I], Civil
Code of the Philippines; 17 R.C.L. sec. 95, p. 349).

We note that the news item published on August 13, 1956, rectified a
major inaccuracy contained in the first article, by stating that
neither Col. Alba nor the PCAC had filed the aforementioned complaints
with the city fiscal’s office. It, likewise, indicated the number of
sheets of stencil involved in said complaints. But, this rectification
or clarification does not wipe out the responsibility arising from the
publication of the first article, although it may and should mitigate
it (Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27 Phil. 52). For this reason, we feel that the
interest of justice and of all parties concerned would be served if the
defendants indemnify the plaintiff in the sums of P3,000, by way of
moral damages, and P2,000, as attorney’s fees.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and another
one shall be entered sentencing the defendants herein to pay jointly
and severally to the plaintiff the aforementioned sum of P3,000, as
moral damages, and P2,000, by way of attorney’s fees, in addition to
the costs. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.