PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, RAMON A. GONZALES, OFFENDED PARTY AND APPELLANT, VS. RICARDO ALVAREZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Gonzales versus Alvarez

The Case

This is Gonzales versus Alvarez, a criminal case for libel that became a landmark on the doctrine of absolutely privileged communications. Ramon Gonzales, a lawyer and municipal councilor, charged Ricardo Alvarez, a special counsel in the provincial fiscal's office, with libel over statements Alvarez made in a pleading filed in court. The question is whether words written in a judicial pleading, however harsh, may be the basis of a libel prosecution. The case matters because it fixes the rule that pleadings in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, and that the only limit is relevance to the cause.

Procedural History

On complaint of Gonzales, the City Fiscal of Iloilo filed an information for libel against Alvarez in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Alvarez moved to quash on the sole ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Over Gonzales's objection, the trial court granted the motion, holding that the alleged libelous statements were privileged. Gonzales, as offended party, and the Government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Gonzales was defense counsel in a criminal case for robbery in band with homicide before Branch Five of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Alvarez was the special counsel in the office of the Provincial Fiscal who filed the information in that case. Gonzales moved to quash the information, arguing among other things that Alvarez had no authority to file it, because he was occupying a classified position as chief clerk and could not be appointed to the unclassified position of special counsel.

Alvarez filed an opposition to the motion to quash. In it he wrote that Gonzales claimed there was no law authorizing the employment of special counsel, yet Gonzales's own annex cited Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code. He wrote that ethical lawyers would never stoop to such base chicanery and double talk, and that Gonzales had resorted to perversion and falsehood, asking who Gonzales was trying to fool.

Gonzales caused the filing of an information for libel, quoting these statements as false, malicious, and defamatory. Alvarez moved to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. The trial court agreed that the statements were privileged and dismissed the information, and the offended party and the Government appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the allegedly libelous statements in a judicial pleading are absolutely privileged, so that malice need not be shown.
• Whether or not the statements were relevant and pertinent to the cause in hand, which is the condition for the privilege to attach.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the information for libel.

Applicable Provisions

Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code classifies privileged communications, and its second paragraph provides:

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, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

This provision is the statutory anchor of the privilege, which the Court extends to pleadings in judicial proceedings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions, and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged. Quoting Newell, the Court explained that in this class of cases it is considered in the interest of public welfare that all persons should be allowed to express their sentiments and speak their minds fully and fearlessly, and all actions for words so spoken are absolutely forbidden, even if it be alleged and proved that the words were spoken falsely, knowingly, and with express malice. It does not matter, therefore, whether there was malice, since the statements are contained in a judicial pleading and protected by the mantle of privileged communication.

On the second issue, the Court held that counsels, parties, or witnesses are exempted from liability for words otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided the statements are connected with, or relevant, pertinent, or material to, the cause in hand. The test of relevancy is liberal:

The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy and impropriety. In order that matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.

The Court found that the issue then before the trial court was the propriety of Gonzales's motion to quash, and that Alvarez's aim was merely to denounce what he considered unethical and dishonest practices of opposing counsel. While the language may be a little too strong and vociferous, it was in relation and pertinent to the cause for which it was written. The Court also noted that a privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice or falsity, and that the information did not allege the irrelevancy or impertinency of the questioned statements.

On the third issue, the Court held that no error was committed by the trial court in considering the remarks privileged and in dismissing the information for lack of cause of action.

Doctrine

Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions, and motions, are absolutely privileged under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Malice, falsity, and express malice are immaterial, and no libel action lies for such statements. The privilege is not unlimited: the statements must be connected with, or relevant, pertinent, or material to, the cause in hand. Relevancy is judged liberally; the matter must be so palpably wanting in relation to the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy. A privileged communication is not to be subjected to microscopic examination to discover malice or falsity.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the information for libel, with costs against Gonzales.

Remember This

Pleadings in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, and malice or falsity does not defeat the privilege so long as the statements are relevant to the cause. Examiners use this case to test the absolute privilege of judicial pleadings and the liberal relevancy test that limits it.