G.R. No. 23063. December 10, 1925
J. F. OLIVER AND LAVIECE CHAMBLISE OLIVER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. “LA VANGUARDIA, INC.,” DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
MALCOLM, J.:
damages in the amount of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) on account of
an alleged libelous article published in defendant’s newspaper Taliba. The judgment in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan was with the defendant.
A preliminary point was made by counsel for the appellee in a motion to
dismiss the appeal. The court, however, after due consideration denied
the motion. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 146 as amended; Soriano vs. Ramirez [1923], 44 Phil., 519.)
Appellants’ five assignments of error center around the question of
whether the article, the subject of the suit, is libelous or not. The
trial judge found it not to be libelous. Appellants argue vigorously
that it is libelous.
Taliba is a newspaper of Manila published in the Tagalog dialect by La Vanguardia, Inc.
It conducts a humorous column entitled “Buhay Maynila” (Manila Life).
Verses in Tagalog written by the poet Jose Corazon de Jesus under the nom de plume of Huseng Batute appear regularly therein.
In the edition of Taliba
of March 3, 1921, the column “Buhay Maynila” (Manila Life) was given up
to matter with the heading “Amerikanang Asuwang” (American Ghoul).
Underneath appeared in quotation marks what was apparently an excerpt
from a news item, reading “The Filipino flag was insulted and
depreciated by Mrs. J. F. Oliver, a teacher in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. * *
*.” Then followed a poem which, as translated into English for the
record, reads as follows:
“Aha! you little devil,
So there you are!
I had been looking for you during holy week,
In order to place into your mouth a glowing
Coal, mouth of a Medusa,
Cave of snakes, and hole of …
Aha, you devil,
Now I have caught you!
“What you deserve
Is to be scourged by me!
Ha, one, two—go on—lie down, three! four,
Five, six—lie down you … hup!—Seven, eight,
Nine, ten, eleven, twelve . . . devil!
What, will you do it again? Ha? Mind you,
That I have scourged you
For being so talkative!
“Even though you be an American,
I’ll flog you!
What is it you said? Our national flag
Is the flag of ignorant people!
And you likewise said it should be trod upon?
Lie down … I will make it twenty-five lashes,
Even though you be an American woman,
I’ll beat you!
“You have allowed yourself to go too far
Because your attention was not halted!
You think I have no ears
With which to hear your grumbling insults . . .
You think I have no eyes
To see that you are a mere hussy . . .
Go on … lie down, go on!!!
I will strike you!
“Before you teach,
You ought to know
That every flag is dear to the heart
Of the people that fly it;
If your mind is so twisted and crooked
You should be thrown over a high precipice . . .
You are an individual devoid of education!
“You ought to stop and think,
That as a wise teacher . . .
The national flag should not be insulted by you;
For a little I would cast you far away.
If you wish to be respected you must respect.
Those things that are bad for you you should not do.
Do not be so talkative
In order to save yourself from being cooked.
The defendant failed entirely to plead the truth as a defense. Rather
does the defendant take the position, to use counsel’s own words, that
“the humorous verse” in Tagalog “was a mere jocous publication designed
rather as an entertainment for the readers of the paper than as
anything else,” and hence that the publication was not in itself
libelous. In addition, the special defense contains averments intended
to establish that the matter charged as libelous was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends.
The poem, as we have stated, appeared in the humorous section of Taliba.
This part of a newspaper is intended to tickle the fancy, to while away
a passing hour with quirk and joke, and to provide amusement for its
readers. Much may be conceded under such circumstances to the author.
Immaterial inaccuracies are unimportant. Poetic license may be indulged
in to meet the requirements of rhyme and rhythm. Occasional ridicule
which pricks the feelings of the individual can be pardoned.
Extravaganzas are permissible.
Here the language used passes
from the bounds of playful jest and intensive criticism into the region
of scurrilous calumniation and intemperate personalities. There is
nothing funny in such contemptuous phrases as “An American Ghoul;” “The
Filipino flag was insulted;” “you little devil;” “you devil;” “What you
deserve is to be scourged by me;” “Our national flag is the flag of
ignorant people! * * * it should be trod upon;” “even though you be an
American woman, I’ll beat you;” “you are a mere hussy;” “If your mind
is so twisted and crooked you should be thrown over a high precipice;”
“You are an individual devoid of education!” The article complained of
represents Mrs. Oliver as illiterate, coarse, and vulgar, as an evil
spirit to be shunned, and as entirely out of harmony with the patriotic
ideals of the youth of the country.
The article in question is unquestionably libelous per se,
To follow the lead of the Libel Law, it is a malicious defamation,
expressed in writing, tending to impeach the reputation and to expose
one to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule. It affects a teacher in
her profession to her disadvantage. It is injurious to her reputation.
It has occasioned mental suffering. What greater humiliation, what more
insistent harm could a teacher suffer than to have her name paraded in
a newspaper throughout the length and breadth of the land, with the
implication that she had insulted the Filipino flag?
The case of Wells vs.
Times Printing Co. ([1913], 77 Wash., 171), had to do with a newspaper
article which referred to the plaintiff as a “man who reviled U. S.
flag,” “who denounced Old Glory as a dirty rag,” a “redtinted
agitator,” voicing “constructive sedition and treason,” leaping “beyond
the last border of unloyalty and indecency” by “denouncing Old Glory as
a dirty rag,” and “wantonly insulted the symbol of a patriotic
allegiance.” Held libelous per se. Mr. Justice Morris for the
Supreme Court of Washington said: ” * * * Such language requires no
innuendo to construe its meaning as intending to bring the individual
of whom it is written into public hatred, contempt, and ridicule,
expose him to public obloquy, scorn, and shame, and cause him to be
shunned and avoided by his fellows. * * *”
The case of Triggs vs.
Sun Printing and Publishing Association ([1904], 179 N. Y., 144),
concerned libelous articles relating to Professor Oscar L. Triggs of
the University of Chicago. On the subject of whether the publication
could be justified upon the ground that it was a mere jest, the highest
court of the State of New York, speaking through Mr. Justice Martin,
said:
“It is likewise claimed by the
respondent that these articles were written in jest, and hence that it
is not liable to the plaintiff for the injury he has sustained. It is,
perhaps, possible that the defendant published the articles in question
as a jest, yet they do not disclose that, but are a scathing
denunciation, ridiculing the plaintiff. If, however, they can be
regarded as having been published as a jest, then it should be said
that however desirable it may be that the readers of and the writers
for the public prints shall be amused, it is manifest that neither such
readers nor writers should be furnished such amusement at the expense
of the reputation or business of another. In the language of Joy, C.
B.: The principle is clear that a person shall riot be allowed to
murder another’s reputation in jest; ‘ or, in the words of Smith, B.,
in the same case: ‘If a man in jest conveys a serious imputation, he
jests at his peril.’ (Donoghue vs. Hayes [1831], Hayes, Irish
Exchequer, 265, 266.) We are of the opinion that one assaulting the
reputation or business of another in a public newspaper cannot justify
it upon the ground that it was a mere jest, unless it is perfectly
manifest from the language employed that it could in no respect be
regarded as an attack upon the reputation or business of the person to
whom it related.“The single purpose of the rule permitting
fair and honest criticism is that it promotes the public good, enables
the people to discern right from wrong, encourages merit, and firmly
condemns and exposes the charlatan arid the cheat, and hence is based
upon public policy. The distinction between criticism and defamation is
that criticism deals only with such things as invite public attention
or call for public comment, and does not follow a public man into his
private life or pry into his domestic concerns. It never attacks the
individual, but only his work. A true critic never indulges in
personalities, but confines himself to the merits of the
subject-matter, and never takes advantage of the occasion to attain any
other object beyond the fair discussion of matters of public interest
and the judicious guidance of the public taste. The articles in
question come far short of falling within the line of true criticism,
but are clearly defamatory in character and are libelous per se.”
The defense tends to show various circumstances in mitigation. In the first place, the newspaper Ang Mithi had the day before the appearance of the poem in Taliba
published a news item and an editorial on the subject of the insult to
the Filipino flag. In the second place, there were rumors current in
Manila to this effect which came to the attention of De Jesus. In the
third place, De Jesus was permitted by the chief clerk of the Bureau of
Education to read certain correspondence on the subject. In the fourth
place, much can be forgiven where patriotic ardor is inflamed. To all
this there is added the fact that in the issue of Taliba of
March 17, 1921, in the same column “Buhay Maynila” (Manila Life) after
the charges against Mrs. Oliver had been found to be groundless, De
Jesus made a retraction in Tagalog although still in somewhat of a
satirical vein, concluding with these words in English and Tagalog:
“Dear
Mrs. Oliver: From the latest information received here in Manila, I
have learned that news regarding your alleged insult against our Flag
is not true, and I wish to take this opportunity of making my apology
for attacking you in my poem.“Tapus na ang kuento!
None of the grounds of defense constitute complete justification. (U. S. vs. Liongsin [1919], 39 Phil., 457; U. S. vs.
McCullough Dick [1915], 30 Phil., 76.) The most that can be said for
the defense is that the tort was not aggravated. The points made for
the defense are in the nature of mitigating circumstances which, while
not proving the truth of the publication, permit of an inference that
the defendant was not actuated by malice except as the statute makes it
presumptively so. In this category are the previous publication by
another newspaper, common rumor and belief, and retraction (Newel,
Slander and Libel, Third Edition, pp. 1072, 1087).
Whether
under such circumstances the plaintiffs should be allowed nominal or
substantial damages, is a question difficult of ascertainment. The
amount of the damages resulting from the libelous publication is
likewise difficult of approximation. A majority of the court entertain
the opinion that as damages for injury to feelings and reputation, and
as punitive damages, the plaintiffs should be allowed a total of one
thousand pesos (P1,000).
The judgment is reversed and the
plaintiffs shall have and recover of the defendant the sum of one
thousand pesos (Pl,000) and costs.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Villa-Real, J.: I believe that P500 would be sufficient.