NORBERTO QUISUMBING, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. EUGENIO LOPEZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Quisumbing versus Lopez

The Case

This is an action for damages for libel brought by Norberto Quisumbing, a businessman and broker, against Eugenio Lopez, Ernesto del Rosario, and Roberto Villanueva, who were respectively the publisher, the editor in chief, and the general manager of The Manila Chronicle, a daily newspaper published and circulated in English in the City of Manila. Quisumbing complains of a news item published in that newspaper which reported a raid by agents of the anti-usury board of the National Bureau of Investigation on the business offices of three alleged money lenders, and which carried the headline NBI Men Raid Offices of 3 City Usurers. The case matters because it fixes the rule on how an allegedly libelous publication is to be read, headline and body together as one entirety, and because it marks the leeway our law allows the press for honest mistakes made in good faith and under the pressure of deadlines.

Procedural History

On July 15, 1949, Quisumbing filed a complaint against the respondents in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of damages in the sum of 50,000 pesos. After answer and trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. Quisumbing appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a decision promulgated on January 19, 1953, affirmed the judgment of the court of origin. The case then reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari filed by Quisumbing.

Facts

The Manila Chronicle, published and circulated in English in Manila, carried in its issue of November 7, 1947 a news item headlined NBI Men Raid Offices of 3 City Usurers. The story reported that, giving effect to the announced policy of the National Bureau of Investigation of not allowing usury cases to be settled extrajudicially, agents of the anti-usury board had the day before raided the business offices of three alleged Manila money lenders. It named the offices raided as those of Norberto Quisumbing, a businessman and broker, at the Trade and Commerce, and those of Ngo Seng and Go Pin at Elcano Street in Binondo.

The story further stated that the anti-usury board acted following receipt of a complaint against the three businessmen, that the chief of the anti-usury division disclosed that criminal action against the three would soon be filed in the city fiscal's office, and that the raids were conducted under the supervision of two named agents.

The Court of Appeals found that the news item was the result of a press release in connection with an official investigation of the Anti-Usury Division of the National Bureau of Investigation, and was a substantial, if not a faithful, reproduction of that press release, which was in turn an accurate report of the official proceedings taken. The headline, however, was admittedly not part of the basic press release but was merely added by the respondents. Quisumbing's theory, stripped of incidentals, was that while the body of the news item might be a fair, impartial, and accurate report of an official investigation and therefore privileged, the headline was libelous per se because it branded and condemned him as a usurer when in fact no criminal charge for usury was ever filed against him in any court. The Court of Appeals found no evidence that the publication was prompted by personal ill will or spite, or that there was any intention to do harm, and found instead an honest and high sense of duty to serve the best interests of the public, without self-seeking motive and with malice towards none.

Issues

• Whether or not a newspaper article claimed to be libelous must be read and construed as a whole, including its headline, in determining its meaning and whether it is defamatory.
• Whether or not the headline NBI Men Raid Offices of 3 City Usurers is libelous per se, and therefore actionable, when the body of the news item is a privileged report of an official investigation.
• Whether or not the respondents abused the freedom of the press or violated the petitioner's right to a good name and reputation, in the light of the finding that the publication was made in good faith and without malice.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the governing rule on the construction of an allegedly defamatory publication, which the Court states as follows:

The article must be construed as an entirety including the headlines, as they may enlarge, explain, or restrict or be enlarged, explained or strengthened or restricted by the context. Whether or not it is libelous, depends upon the scope, spirit and motive of the publication taken in its entirety.

This rule bears on the case because it requires the headline to be read together with the body of the news item, and not in isolation as the petitioner urged.

The Court also adopts the settled principle on how a defamatory publication is to be understood by its readers:

A publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. So, the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together, and its meaning and signification thus determined.

This principle bears on the case because it fixes the test of meaning by the ordinary understanding of the reading public, which takes the headline and the story together.

Finally, the Court applies the requirement that the defamatory matter point to an identifiable person:

Libel cannot be committed except against somebody and that somebody must be properly identified.

This requirement bears on the case because the headline alone does not name the petitioner, and the body does not portray him as one charged with or convicted of usury.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the article must be construed as an entirety, including the headline, and that its meaning depends upon the scope, spirit, and motive of the publication taken as a whole. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on American authorities holding that a headline may be libelous while the body is privileged, and adopted instead the rule that the whole item, including display lines, is read and construed together.

On the second issue, the Court held that the headline is not libelous per se. Nobody reading the whole news item would come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been accused or convicted of usury. The headline may fairly be said to contain a correct description of the news story, because the raid was conducted by anti-usury agents following receipt of a complaint against the petitioner and two others, and the chief of the anti-usury division announced that criminal action would be filed in the city fiscal's office. The Court explained the meaning of the challenged word:

The word usurer simply means one who practices usury or even a mere money lender, but certainly not a usury convict.

Nothing in the headline or the context suggested that the petitioner was already charged with or convicted of the crime of usury. And if the premise of the petitioner's authorities be accepted, that the headline is often the only part of the article read, his position becomes untenable, since by reading merely the headline nobody would even suspect that the petitioner was referred to, and libel cannot be committed except against somebody who must be properly identified.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondents had not violated the petitioner's right to a good name and reputation, nor abused the freedom of the press. Every citizen has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but under the circumstances the respondents did not violate that right. Newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in a democracy. Press reporters and editors usually have to race with their deadlines, and consistently with good faith and reasonable care they should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.

Doctrine

An article claimed to be libelous must be read and construed as an entirety, including its headline, which may enlarge, explain, or restrict the context and may in turn be enlarged, explained, or restricted by it. Whether the publication is libelous depends upon its scope, spirit, and motive taken in its entirety, and the words are taken in the sense in which the readers to whom the publication is addressed would ordinarily understand them.

A headline is not libelous per se where, read together with the body of the news item, it does not charge the person with a crime or portray him as one accused or convicted of it. The word usurer means one who practices usury or even a mere money lender, not a usury convict.

Libel cannot be committed except against somebody, and that somebody must be properly identified. A headline that does not name the complainant, read with a body that does not portray him as charged with or convicted of a crime, cannot support an action for libel.

The press is entitled to leeway and tolerance so that it may courageously and effectively perform its role in a democracy, and, consistently with good faith and reasonable care, reporters and editors are not to be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the petitioner, so that the complaint for damages was dismissed and the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the article must be construed as an entirety including the headlines, and that whether it is libelous depends upon the scope, spirit, and motive of the publication taken in its entirety. Examiners use this case on the construction of allegedly defamatory newspaper publications, on the privileged report of official proceedings and the headline added to it, and on the leeway accorded the press for honest mistakes made in good faith.