NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

This is an ordinary civil action, originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, for the recovery, by plaintiffs Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban, of several sums of money, by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang.
Upon being summoned, the latter moved to dismiss the complaint upon the
ground that the letter in question is not libelous, and that, even if
were, said letter is a privileged communication. This motion having
been granted by the lower court, plaintiffs interposed the present
appeal from the corresponding order of dismissal. The issues before us
are: (1) whether the publication in question is a privileged
communication; and, if not, (2) whether it is libelous or not. The
first issue stems from the fact that, at the time of said publication,
defendant was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of
its Committee on National Defense, and that pursuant to the
Constitution:

“The
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases
except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from
arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in
going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate
therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.” (Article VI,
Section 15.)

The determination of the first issue depends on whether or
not the aforementioned publication falls within the purview of the
phrase “speech or debate therein” – that is to say, in Congress – used
in this provision.

Said
expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance
of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements
made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in
session, as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is
in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in
Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official
discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional
Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the
time of the performance of the acts in question. ^[1]

The
publication involved in this case does not belong to this category.
According to the complaint herein, it was an open letter to the
President of the Philippines, dated November 14, 1958, when Congress
presumably was not in session, and defendant caused said letter to be
published in several newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines, on or about said date. It is obvious that, in thus causing
the communication to be so published, he was not performing his
official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of any
Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by His Honor,
the trial Judge, said communication is not absolutely privileged.

Was
it libelous, insofar as the plaintiffs herein are concerned? Addressed
to the President, the communication began with the following
paragraphs:

“In
the light of the recent developments which however unfortunate had
nevertheless involved the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
unfair attacks against the duly elected members of Congress of engaging
in intriguing and rumormongering, allow
me, Your Excellency, to address this open letter to focus public
attention to certain vital information which, under the present
circumstances, I feel it my solemn duty to our people to expose.

“It
has come to my attention that there have been allegedly three
operational plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers,
with the aid of some civilian political strategists.”

Then,
it describes the “allegedly three (3) operational plans” referred to in
the second paragraph. The first plan is said to be “an insidious plan
for a massive political build-up” of then Secretary of National
Defense, Jesus Vargas, by propagandizing and glamorizing him in such a
way as to “be prepared to become a candidate for President in 1961”. To
this end, the “planners” are said to “have adopted the sales-talk that
Secretary Vargas is ‘Communists’ Public Enemy No. 1 in the Philippines.” Moreover, the P4,000,000.00
“intelligence and psychological warfare funds” of the Department of
National Defense, and the “Peace and Amelioration Fund” – the letter
says – are “available to adequately finance a political campaign”. It
further adds:

“It is reported that the ‘Planners’ have under their control the following: (1) Col. Nicanor Jimenez of NICA, (2) Lt. Col. Jose Lukban of NBI, (3) Capt. Carlos Albert (PN) of G-2 AFP, (4) Col. Fidel Llamas of MIS, (5) Lt. Col. Jose Regala
of the Psychological Warfare Office, DND, and (6) Major Jose Reyna of
the Public Information Office, DND. To insure this control, the
‘Planners’ purportedly sent Lt. Col. Job Mayo, Chief of MIS, to Europe to study and while Mayo was in Europe, he was relieved by Col. Fidel Llmas. They also sent Lt. Col. Deogracias Caballero, Chief of Psychological Warfare Office, DND, to USA to study and while Caballero was in USA, he was relieved by Lt. Col. Jose Regala. The ‘Planners’ wanted to relieve Lt. Col. Ramon Galvezon, Chief of CIS (PC) but failed. Hence, Galvezon, is considered a missing link in the intelligence Network. It is, of course, possible that the officers mentioned above are unwittingly tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge.” (Underscoring ours.)

Among
the means said to be used to carry out the plan, the letter lists,
under the heading “other operational technique”, the following:

(a)
Continuous speaking engagements all over the Philippines for Secretary
Vargas to talk on “Communism” and “Apologetics” on civilian supremacy
over the military;

(b)
Articles in magazines, news releases, and hundreds of letters – “typed
in two (2) typewriters only” – to Editors of magazines and newspapers,
extolling Secretary Vargas as the “hero of democracy in 1951, 1953,
1955 and 1957 elections”;

(c) Radio announcements extolling Vargas and criticizing the administration;

(d)
Virtual assumption by Vargas of the functions of the Chief of Staff and
an attempt to pack key positions in several branches of the Armed
Forces with men belonging to his clique;

(e)
Insidious propaganda and rumors spread in such a way as to give the
impression that they reflect the feeling of the people or the
opposition parties, to undermine the administration. Plan No. II is
said to be a “coup d’etat“, in connection
with which the “planners” had gone no further than the planning stage,
although the plan “seems to be held in abeyance and subject to future
developments”. Plan No. III is characterized as a modification of Plan
No. I, by trying to assuage the President and the public with a loyalty
parade, in connection with which Gen. Arellano delivered a speech
challenging the authority and integrity of Congress, in an effort to
rally the officers and men of the AFP behind him, and gain popular and
civilian support.

The
letter in question recommended: (1) that Secretary Vargas be asked to
resign; (2) that the Armed Forces be divorced absolutely from politics;
(3) that the Secretary of National Defense be a civilian, not a
professional military man; (4) that no Congressman be appointed to said
office; (5) that Gen. Arellano be asked to resign or retire; (6) that
the present chiefs of the various intelligence agencies in the Armed
Forces, including the chiefs of the NICA, NBI, and other intelligence
agencies mentioned elsewhere in the letter, be reassigned, considering
that “they were handpicked by Secretary Vargas and Gen. Arellano”, and
that, “most probably, they belong to the Vargas-Arellano clique”; (7)
that all military personnel now serving civilian offices be returned to
the AFP, except those holding positions by provision of law; (8) that
the Regular Division of the AFP stationed in Laur, Nueva Ecija,
be dispersed by battalion strength to the various stand-by or training
divisions throughout the country; and (9) that Vargas and Arellano
should disqualify themselves from holding or undertaking an
investigation of the planned “coup d’etat“.

We
are satisfied that the letter in question is not sufficient to support
plaintiffs’ action for damages. Although the letter says that
plaintiffs are under the control of the unnamed persons therein alluded
to as “planners”, and that, having been handpicked by Secretary Vargas
and Gen. Arellano, plaintiffs “probably belong to the Vargas-Arellano
clique”, it should be noted that defendant, likewise, added that “it is
of course possible” that plaintiffs “are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge“. In other words, the very document upon which plaintiffs’ action is based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely unaware
of the alleged operational plans, and that they may be merely unwitting
tools of the planners. We do not think that this statement is
derogatory to the plaintiffs, to the point of entitling them to recover
damages, considering that they are officers of our Armed Forces, that
as such they are by law, under the control of the Secretary of National
Defense and the Chief of Staff, and that the letter in question seems
to suggest that the group therein described as “planners” include these
two (2) high ranking officers.

It
is true that the complaint alleges that the open letter in question was
written by the defendant, knowing that it is false and with the intent
to impeach plaintiffs’ reputation, to expose them to public hatred,
contempt, dishonor and ridicule, and to alienate them from their
associates, but these allegations are mere conclusions which are
inconsistent with the contents of said letter and cannot prevail over
the same, it being the very basis of the complaint. Then too, when
plaintiffs allege in their complaint that said communication is false,
they could not have possibly meant that they were aware of the alleged
plan to stage a coup d’etat or that they
were knowingly tools of the “planners”. Again, the aforementioned
passage in the defendant’s letter clearly implies that plaintiffs were not among the “planners” of said coup d’etat, for, otherwise, they could not be “tools”, much less, unwittingly on their part, of said “planners”.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, JBL, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.