FRANCISCO N. VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. VIRGILIO P. BALAGUER AND INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION CHANNEL-13, RESPONDENTS.

Villanueva versus Balaguer

The Case

This is a civil action for damages. Francisco Villanueva, formerly an operations executive of Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation Channel 13, sued the network and its president, Virgilio Balaguer, over newspaper reports quoting Balaguer as saying that an operations executive had been dismissed for selling forged certificates of performance. Villanueva claimed the reports pointed to him and defamed him. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the burden of proof in civil cases and on the limits of the rule on admission by silence — two doctrines examiners test again and again.

Procedural History

Villanueva filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, later amended to include the broadcasting corporation as an additional defendant. The trial court ruled in his favor, ordering Balaguer and the corporation to pay moral, exemplary, nominal, and temperate damages, plus attorney's fees, with costs. The defendants moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint, the counterclaim, and the cross-claim. Villanueva's motion for reconsideration was denied, so he elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

On March 31, 1992, Villanueva, then Assistant Manager for Operations of the network, was dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence for purportedly selling forged certificates of performance. He contested his termination before the National Labor Relations Commission.

While the labor case was pending, news articles appeared in July 1992 in the Manila Times, the Philippine Star, and the Manila Bulletin. In these articles, Balaguer, then president of the network, was quoted as saying that he had uncovered various anomalies, including the sale of forged certificates of performance, which led to the dismissal of an operations executive.

On July 20, 1992, Villanueva sent Balaguer a letter urging him to confirm or deny within forty-eight hours that Villanueva was not the operations executive alluded to, warning that silence would be construed as an admission. No one replied. Villanueva then sued for damages. Balaguer denied having anything to do with the publications and insisted the statements were true, without malice, of public concern, and privileged. The network likewise denied participation, saying any press statement was Balaguer's alone. Meanwhile, the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, and the parties later entered into a compromise agreement waiving all claims arising from the labor case.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure of the addressees to respond to Villanueva's letter, which attributed to them acts constituting an actionable wrong, amounts to an admission of the statements in that letter.
• Whether or not the admission of a principal is admissible against its agent, and whether the admission of a person jointly interested with a party is admissible against the latter.
• Whether or not Balaguer's failure to disown the newspaper attribution to him as the source of the reports constitutes an admission that he was indeed the source.

Applicable Provisions

Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on admission by silence provides:

An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.

This is the rule Villanueva invoked to convert the respondents' silence into proof of his claim.

Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on admission by a co-partner or agent provides:

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.

This is the rule Villanueva invoked to use the network's cross-claim against Balaguer as an admission against Balaguer.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the letter did not produce an admission. A party cannot prove his claim by placing the burden of proof on the other side. As the Court put it, a man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements he wishes to prove, and he cannot impose a duty to answer a charge any more than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. The rule on admission by silence, moreover, applies to adverse written statements only where the parties were carrying on a mutual correspondence; without it, the rule is relaxed, because a prompt reply cannot generally be expected when one must still resort to a written answer.

On the second issue, the Court held that the network's cross-claim against Balaguer created an adverse interest between them, so the admission of one defendant is not admissible against his co-defendant. The alleged acts imputed to Balaguer were never proven, much less shown to be malicious, and malice implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose.

On the third issue, the Court held that Balaguer's failure to disown the newspaper attribution was not an admission, for the same reason: the rule on admission by silence is relaxed when the statement is not made orally in one's presence or when a written reply is still required. Newspaper articles purporting to state what a defendant said are inadmissible against him, since he cannot be held responsible for the writings of third persons. Villanueva did not implead the editorial staff or publisher, nor present the authors as witnesses. Balaguer's testimony was not a clear and unambiguous admission, and he had specifically denied the allegations in his answer.

Doctrine

First, in civil cases the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, who must establish his affirmative allegations by a preponderance of evidence; he cannot shift that burden to the defendant by demanding a reply.

Second, the rule on admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130 applies to adverse written statements only where there is mutual correspondence between the parties; absent that, silence does not amount to admission.

Third, newspaper articles purporting to quote a person are inadmissible against him, because he is not responsible for the writings of third persons.

Fourth, under Section 29, Rule 130, the admission of one defendant is not admissible against a co-defendant where their interests have become adverse.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals decision reversing the trial court and dismissing the complaint, counterclaim, and cross-claim was affirmed.

Remember This

A man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements he wishes to prove. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of admission by silence and the rule that the burden of proof in a civil action for damages never shifts to the defendant through mere silence.