MILAGROS TEJUCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. E. R. SQUIBB & SON PHILIPPINE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Tejuco versus E. R. Squibb and Son Philippine Corporation

The Case

This is the case of Tejuco versus E. R. Squibb and Son Philippine Corporation. Milagros Tejuco, a former employee, sued her former employers for damages and for a retraction, claiming that they had written and posted a libelous letter of separation. The case matters because it fixes the prescriptive period for a civil action for damages founded on libel: the action must be brought within one year, not the longer periods that might be supposed to govern ordinary civil obligations. It is a short decision, but it is a favorite of examiners because it shows how the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code are read together.

Procedural History

Tejuco filed a civil complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against her former employers. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion on the ground of prescription. Tejuco moved for reconsideration, and her motion was denied. She then interposed the present appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in April 1958.

Facts

Milagros Tejuco had been employed by E. R. Squibb and Son Philippine Corporation. After her employment ended, her former employers wrote her a letter of separation which, in her view, was libelous. A copy of that letter was posted on the company's bulletin board.

On the strength of that publication, Tejuco filed a civil complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila. She prayed that judgment be rendered sentencing the defendants to pay her damages in the amount of 50,000 pesos, with interest, and asking further that they retract the contents of the letter of separation and give the retraction due and requisite publicity.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription, and the trial court granted the motion. Tejuco admitted that her complaint was filed one year and six months after the publication of the libelous letter on October 18, 1954. The only question left for the Supreme Court was the length of the prescriptive period for a civil action arising, according to her, from libel covered by Articles 353, 355 and 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issues

• Whether or not a civil action for damages arising from libel is governed by the penal laws, through the civil liability provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the prescriptive period for such a civil action is one year, as required for an action for defamation under the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the complaint, filed one year and six months after publication, was already barred by prescription.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1161 of the Civil Code provides:

Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Code, regulating damages.

This provision directs the Court to the penal laws for civil obligations arising from criminal offenses such as libel.

Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

This provision sends the Court back to the Civil Law on the matter of extinguishment of the civil liability.

Article 1231 of the Civil Code provides:

Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code.

This provision tells the Court that prescription is governed by the Civil Code itself.

Article 1129 of the Civil Code provides:

Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.

This provision leads the Court to the specific period fixed by law for defamation.

Article 1147 of the Civil Code provides:

The following actions must be brought within one year: 1. Upon a written contract; 2. Upon an obligation created by law; 3. Upon a judgment.

As the Court reads it, this is the provision that requires an action for defamation to be filed within one year.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a civil action arising from libel is governed by the penal laws, by force of Article 1161 of the Civil Code. The Court examined the rules restricting the application of the penal laws and found no provision on the question involved in the case.

On the second issue, the Court traced the path of the law. Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102 and 103 of that Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law. Article 1231 of the Civil Code, in turn, provides that other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as prescription, are governed elsewhere in the Civil Code. On prescription, the applicable provision is Article 1129 of the Civil Code, which states that actions prescribe by mere lapse of time fixed by law. This necessarily led the Court to Article 1147 of the Civil Code, which requires that an action for defamation must be filed within one year. The Court added that the broad term defamation, in the absence of any other specific provision, includes libel.

On the third issue, since Tejuco herself admitted that her complaint was filed one year and six months after the publication of the libelous letter, the action had already prescribed. The order of dismissal was therefore correct.

Doctrine

A civil action for damages arising from libel is governed by the penal laws under Article 1161 of the Civil Code, and its civil liability is extinguished in the same manner as other obligations under Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code. Following Article 1231 and Article 1129 of the Civil Code, the Court applies the one-year period fixed by Article 1147 of the Civil Code, because the broad term defamation includes libel. The rule a Bar candidate should write is simple: a civil action for damages based on libel must be filed within one year from publication, and a complaint filed after that period is barred by prescription.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against the appellant, Milagros Tejuco.

Remember This

Memorize the chain: Article 1161 of the Civil Code to Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code to Article 1231, Article 1129 and Article 1147 of the Civil Code, ending in the one-year period for defamation, which includes libel. Examiners use this case to test prescription of a civil action for libel and the interplay between the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code.