lim v de leon - lim v kou co ping
TRANSCRIPT
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 1/49
G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975DELFIN LIM and JIKIL TAA, !"a#nt#$s-a!!%""ants,&s.FRAN'I(') *)N'E DE LE)N AND)RLAND) MADDELA, d%+%ndants-a!!%""%%s.Ricardo L. Manalilig for plaintis-appellants.
Iñigo R. Peña for defendants-appellees. MARTIN, J.:
Appeal on a question of law from the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Palawan in Civil
Case No. 416, entitled !el"n #im and $i%il &aha
vs. Francisco Ponce de #eon and 'rlando
(addela, dismissin) the complaint of the
plainti*s and orderin) them to pa+ each of the
defendants ointl+ and severall+ the sum of
P-. /+ wa+ of actual dama)es0 P-. /+
wa+ of attorne+s fees0 and P1,. /+ wa+
of e2emplar+ dama)es.
'n April 3, 161, plainti*5appellant $i%il &aha
sold to a certain Al/erto &im/an)ca+a of
roo%es Point, Palawan a motor launch named
(7# 8AN 9AFA:#. A +ear later or on April ,
163 Al/erto &im/an)ca+a "led a complaint
with the ';ce of the Provincial Fiscal of
Palawan alle)in) that after the sale $i%il &aha
forci/l+ too% awa+ the motor launch from him.
'n (a+ 14, 163, after conductin) apreliminar+ investi)ation, Fiscal Francisco
Ponce de #eon in his capacit+ as Actin)
Provincial Fiscal of Palawan, "led with the Court
of First Instance of Palawan the correspondin)
information for 9o//er+ the Force and
Intimidation upon Persons a)ainst $i%il &aha.
&he case was doc%eted as Criminal Case No.
3<1.
'n $une 1-, 163, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de
#eon, upon /ein) informed that the motorlaunch was in ala/ac, Palawan, wrote the
Provincial Commander of Palawan requestin)
him to direct the detachment commander5in
ala/ac to impound and ta%e custod+ of the
motor launch. 1
'n $une 36, 163, Fiscal Ponce de #eon
reiterated his request to the Provincial
Commander to impound the motor launch,
e2plainin) that its su/sequent sale to a thirdpart+, plainti*5appellant !el"n #im, cannot
prevent the court from ta%in) custod+ of the
same. 2 8o, on $ul+ 6, 163 upon order of the
Provincial Commander, defendant5appellee
'rlando (addela, !etachment Commander of
ala/ac, Palawan, sei=ed the motor launch
8AN 9AFA:# from plainti*5appellant !el"n
#im and impounded it.
'n $ul+ 1-, 163 plainti*5appellant !el"n #im
pleaded with 'rlando (addela to return themotor launch /ut the latter refused. #i%ewise,
on 8eptem/er 3, 163, $i%il &aha throu)h his
counsel made representations with Fiscal Ponce
de #eon to return the sei=ed propert+ to
plainti*5appellant !el"n #im /ut Fiscal Ponce
de #eon refused, on the )round that the same
was the su/ect of a criminal o*ense.
All e*orts to recover the motor launch )oin) to
nau)ht, plainti*s5appellants !el"n #im and $i%il
&aha, on Novem/er 1, 163, "led with the
Court of First Instance of Palawan a complaint
for dama)es a)ainst defendants5appellees
Fiscal Francisco Ponce de #eon and 'rlando
(addela, alle)in) that on $ul+ 6, 163 'rlando
(addela entered the premises of !el"n #im
without a search warrant and then and there
too% awa+ the hull of the motor launch without
his consent0 that he e*ected the sei=ure upon
order of Fiscal Ponce de #eon who %new full+
well that his o;ce was not vested with
authorit+ to order the sei=ure of a private
propert+0 that said motor launch waspurchased /+ !el"n #im from $i%il &aha in
consideration of &hree &housand Pesos
>P?,.@, &wo &housand Pesos >P3,.@
of which has /een )iven to $i%il &aha as
advance pa+ment0 that as a consequence of
the unlawful sei=ure of the motor launch, its
sale did not materiali=e0 and that since $ul+ 6,
163, the said motor launch had /een moored
at the ala/ac a+, Palawan and /ecause of
e2posure to the elements it had /ecomeworthless and /e+ond repair. For the alle)ed
violation of their constitutional ri)hts, plainti*s5
appellants pra+ed that defendants5appellees
/e ordered to pa+ ointl+ and severall+ each of
them the sum of P-,<-. representin)
actual, moral and e2emplar+ dama)es and
attorne+s fees.
In their answer, defendants5appellees denied
the material alle)ations of the complaint and
as a;rmative defenses alle)ed that the motor
launch in question which was sold /+ $i%il &aha
to Al/erto &im/an)ca+a on April 3, 161 was
sometime in April 163, forci/l+ ta%en with
violence upon persons and with intent to )ain
/+ $i%il &aha from Alfredo &im/an)ca+a without
the latters %nowled)e and consent, thus )ivin)
rise to the "lin) of a criminal char)e of ro//er+
a)ainst $i%il &aha0 that Fiscal Ponce de #eon, in
his capacit+ as Actin) Provincial Fiscal of
Palawan ordered 'rlando (addela to sei=e and
impound the motor launch 8AN 9AFA:#, for
/ein) thecorpus delicti of the ro//er+0 and that'rlando (addela merel+ o/e+ed the orders of
his superior o;cer to impound said launch. +
wa+ of counterclaim, defendants5appellees
alle)ed that /ecause of the malicious and
)roundless "lin) of the complaint /+ plainti*s5
appellants, the+ were constrained to en)a)e
the services of law+ers, each of them pa+in)
P-. as attorne+s fees0 and that the+
su*ered moral dama)es in the amount of
P-,. each and actual dama)es in the
amount of P-. each. &he+ also pra+ed that
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 2/49
each of them awarded e2emplar+ dama)es in
the amount of P1,..
'n 8eptem/er 1?, 16-, the trial court
rendered its decision, upholdin) the validit+ of
the sei=ure of the motor launch on the )round
that the authorit+ to impound evidences or
e2hi/its or corpus delicti in a case pendin)
investi)ation is inherent in the Provincial Fiscalwho controls the prosecution and who
introduces those e2hi/its in the court.
Accordin)l+, the trial court dismissed the
complaint of plainti*s5appellants and ordered
them to pa+ ointl+ and severall+ each of the
defendants5appellees the amount of P-.
/+ wa+ of actual dama)es another amount of
P-. for attorne+s fees and P1,. as
e2emplar+ dama)es.
ence, this appeal.
&wo vital issues call for resolution /+ this Court.
First, whether or not defendant5appellee Fiscal
Ponce de #eon had the power to order the
sei=ure of the motor launch in question without
a warrant of search and sei=ure even if the
same was admittedl+ the corpus delicti of the
crime. 8econd, whether or not defendants5
appellees are civill+ lia/le to plainti*s5
appellants for dama)es alle)edl+ su*ered /+
them )rantin) that the sei=ure of the motor
launch was unlawful.
&he )ravamen of plainti*s5appellants
ar)ument is that the ta%in) of the motor launch
on $ul+ 6, 163 /+ 'rlando (addela upon the
order of Fiscal Ponce de #oon was in violation of
the constitutional )uarantee a)ainst
unreasona/le searches and sei=ures since it
was done without a warrant.
&he pertinent provision of the Constitution then
in force readsB
?@ &he ri)ht of the people to /e secure in their
persons, houses, papers and e*ects a)ainst
unreasona/le searches and sei=ures shall not
/e violated, and no warrants shall issue /ut
upon pro/a/le cause, to /e determined /+ the
ud)e after e2amination under oath or
a;rmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he ma+ produce, and particularl+
descri/in) the place to /e searched, and thepersons or thin)s to /e sei=ed.
A cursor+ readin) of the a/ove provision easil+
/rin)s into focus the unreasona/leness of the
sei=ure of the aforementioned motor launch. A
search and sei=ure to /e reasona/le, must /e
e*ected /+ means of a valid search warrant.
And for a search warrant to /e validB >1@ it must
/e issued upon pro/a/le cause0 >3@ the
pro/a/le cause must /e determined /+ the
ud)e himself and not /+ the applicant or an+
other person0 >?@ in the determination of
pro/a/le cause, the ud)e must e2amine,
under oath or a;rmation, the complainant and
such witnesses as the latter ma+ produce0 and
>4@ the warrant issued must particularl+
descri/e the place to /e searched and persons
or thin)s to /e sei=ed. 4
&hus in a lon) line of
decisions, this Court has declared invalid
search warrants which were issued in utter
disre)ard of the constitutional inunction. 5
!efendants5appellees admitted that when'rlando (addela entered the premises of
!el"n #im and impounded the motor launch he
was not armed with a search warrant0 that he
e*ected the sei=ure of the motor launch in the
a/sence of and without the consent of !el"n
#im. &here can /e no question that without the
proper search warrant, no pu/lic o;cial has the
ri)ht to enter the premises of another without
his consent for the purpose of search and
sei=ure. And since in the present case
defendants5appellees sei=ed the motor launchwithout a warrant, the+ have violated the
constitutional ri)ht of plainti*s5appellants
a)ainst unreasona/le search and sei=ure.
!efendants5appellees however would want to
ustif+ the sei=ure of the motor launch even
without a warrant /ecause of Fiscal Ponce de
#eons alle)ed inherent power to order the
sei=ure of a personal propert+ which is
thecorpus delicti of a crime, he /ein)a quasi udicial o;cer who has the control of
the prosecution and the presentation of the
evidence in the criminal case. &he+ ar)ue that
inasmuch as the motor launch in question was
al le)edl+ stolen /+ $i%il &aha from
&im/an)ca+a, Fiscal Ponce de #eon could order
its sei=ure even without a search warrant. e
cannot a)ree. Dnder the old Constitution 7 the
power to issue a search warrant is vested in a
ud)e or ma)istrate and in no other o;cer and
no search and sei=ure can /e made without a
proper warrant. At the time the act complained
of was committed, there was no law or rule
that reco)ni=ed the authorit+ of Provincial
Fiscals to issue a search warrant. In his vain
attempt to ustif+ the sei=ure of the motor
launch in question without a warrant Fiscal
Ponce de #eon invo%ed the provisions of
9epu/lic Act No. <?3, which amended 8ections
16<4 and 16E< of the 9evised Administrative
Code. ut there is nothin) in said law which
confers upon the provincial "scal0 the authorit+
to issue warrants, much less to order withoutwarrant the sei=ure of a personal propert+ even
if it is the corpus delicti of a crime. &rue,
9epu/lic Act No. <?3 has /roadened the power
of provincial "scals to conduct preliminar+
investi)ations, /ut said law did not divest the
ud)e or ma)istrate of its power to determine,
/efore issuin) the correspondin) warrant,
whether or not pro/a/le cause e2ists therefor.
(oreover, under 8ections 3 and ? of 9ule 133
of the 9ules of Court 9 which complement theconstitutional provision earlier cited, two
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 3/49
principles are made clear, namel+B >1@ that in
the sei=ure of a stolen propert+ search warrant
is still necessar+0 and >3@ that in issuin) a
search warrant the ud)e alone determines
whether or not there is a pro/a/le cause. &he
fact that a thin) is a corpus delicti of a crime
does not ustif+ its sei=ure without a warrant.
As held in U.S. v. de los
Reyes and Esguerra,1/
citin) McClurg v.BrentonB 11
&he mere fact that a man is an o;cer, whether
of hi)h or low de)ree, )ives him no more ri)ht
than is possessed /+ the ordinar+ private
citi=en to /rea% in upon the privac+ of a home
and su/ect its occupant to the indi)nit+ of a
search for the evidence of crime, without a
le)al warrant procured for that purpose. No
amount of incriminating evidence whatever its
source will supply the place of such warrant .
At the closed door of the home /e it palace or
hovel even /loodhounds must wait till the law,
/+ authoritative process, /ids it open.
>:mphasis supplied.@
!efendant5appellee Fiscal Ponce de #eon would
also invo%e lac% of time to procure a search
warrant as an e2cuse for the sei=ure of the
motor launch without one. e claimed that the
motor launch had to /e sei=ed immediatel+ in
order to preserve it and to prevent its removal
out of the localit+, since ala/ac, Palawan,where the motor launch was at the time, could
onl+ /e reached after three to four da+s travel
/+ /oat. 12 &he claim cannot /e sustained. &he
records show that on $une 1-, 163 1
Fiscal
Ponce de #eon made the "rst request to the
Provincial Commander for the impoundin) of
the motor launch0 and on $une 36,
163 14 another request was made. &he sei=ure
was not e*ected until $ul+ 6, 163. In short,
Fiscal Ponce de #eon had all the time to
procure a search warrant had he wanted to and
which he could have ta%en in less than a da+,
/ut he did not. esides, there is no /asis for
the apprehension that the motor launch mi)ht
/e moved out of ala/ac /ecause even prior to
its sei=ure the motor launch was alread+
without its en)ine. 15
In sum, the fact that there
was no time to secure a search warrant would
not le)all+ ustif+ a search without one. 1
As to whether or not the+ are entitled todama)es, plainti*s5appellants anchor their
claim for dama)es on Articles ?3 and 331 of
the New Civil Code which provide in part as
followsB
A9&. ?3. An+ pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee, or an+
private individual, who directl+ or indirectl+
o/structs, defeats, violates or in an+ manner
impedes or impairs an+ of the followin) ri)hts
and li/erties of another person shall /e lia/le
to the latter for dama)es.
>@ &he ri)hts to /e secure in ones person,
house, papers, and e*ects a)ainst
unreasona/le searches and sei=ures.
&he indemnit+ shall include moral dama)es.
:2emplar+ dama)es ma+ also /e adudicated.
A9&. 331. (oral dama)es ma+ /e recovered in
the followin) and analo)ous cases
>6@ Ille)al search0
>1@ Acts and action referred to in Articles 31,
36, 3<, 3E, 3, ?, ?3, ?4 and ?-.
Pursuant to the fore)oin) provisions, a person
whose constitutional ri)hts have /een violated
or impaired is entitled to actual and moral
dama)es from the pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee
responsi/le therefor. In addition, e2emplar+
dama)es ma+ also /e awarded. In the instant
case, plainti*5appellant !el"n #im claimed that
he purchased the motor launch from $i%il &aha
in consideration of P?,., havin) )iven
P3,. as advanced pa+ment0 that since or
sei=ure on $ul+ 6, 163 the motor launch had
/een moored at ala/ac a+ and /ecause of
e2posure to the elements it has /ecome
worthless at the time of the "lin) of the
present action0 that /ecause of the ille)alit+ of
the sei=ure of the motor launch, he su*eredmoral dama)es in the sum of P1,.0 and
that /ecause of the violation of their
constitutional ri)hts the+ were constrained to
en)a)e the services of a law+er whom the+
have paid P1,-. for attorne+s fees. e
"nd these claims of !el"n #im ampl+ supported
/+ the evidence and therefore should /e
awarded the sum of P?,. as actual
dama)es0 P1,. as moral dama)es and
P<-. for attorne+s fees. owever, with
respect co plainti* $i%il &aha, he is not entitled
to recover an+ dama)e which he alle)ed he
had su*ered from the unlawful sei=ure of the
motor launch inasmuch as he had alread+
transferred the ownership and possession of
the motor launch to !el"n #im at the time it
was sei=ed and therefore, he has no le)al
standin) to question the validit+ of the sei=ure.
ell settled is the rule that the le)alit+ of a
sei=ure can /e contested onl+ /+ the part+
whose ri)hts have /een impaired there/+, and
that the o/ection to an unlawful search and
sei=ure is purel+ personal and cannot /eavailed of /+ third parties. 17Consequentl+, one
who is not the owner, lessee, or lawful
occupant of the premise searched cannot raise
the question of validit+ of the search and
sei=ure. 1 $i%il &aha is not without recourse
thou)h. e can still collect from his co5plainti*,
!el"n #im the unpaid /alance of P1,..
!efendant5appellee Fiscal Ponce de #eon
wanted to wash his hands of the incident /+
claimin) that he was in )ood faith, without
malice and without the sli)htest intention of
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 4/49
inictin) inur+ to plainti*5appellant, $i%il
&aha 19when he ordered the sei=ure of the
motor launch. e are not prepared to sustain
his defense of )ood faith. &o /e lia/le under
Article ?3 of the New Civil Code it is enou)h
that there was a violation of the constitutional
ri)hts of the plainti*s and it is not required that
defendants should have acted with malice or
/ad faith. !r. $or)e oco/o, Chairman of theCode Commission, )ave the followin) reasons
durin) the pu/lic hearin)s of the $oint 8enate
and ouse Committees, wh+ )ood faith on the
part of the pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee is
immaterial. &husB
!:AN 'C''. Article ?3, re)ardin) individual
ri)hts0 Attorne+ Cirilo Paredes proposes that
Article ?3 /e so amended as to ma%e a pu/lic
o;cial lia/le for violation of another persons
constitutional ri)hts onl+ if the pu/lic o;cial
acted maliciousl+ or in /ad faith. &he Code
Commission opposes this su))estion for these
reasonsB
&he ver+ nature of Article ?3 is that the wron)
ma+ /e civil or criminal. It is not necessar+
therefore that there should /e malice or /ad
faith. &o ma%e such a requisite would defeat
the main purpose of Article ?3 which is the
e*ective protection of individual ri)hts. Pu/lic
o;cials in the past have a/used their powers
on the prete2t of usti"a/le motives or )oodfaith in the performance of their duties.
Precisel+, the o/ect of the Article is to put an
end to o;cial a/use /+ the plea of )ood faith.
In the Dnited 8tates this remed+ is in he nature
of a tort.
(r. Chairman, this article is "rml+ one of the
fundamental articles introduced in the New
Civil Code to implement democrac+. &here is no
real democrac+ if a pu/lic o;cial is a/usin),
and we made the article so stron) and socomprehensive that it concludes an a/use of
individual ri)hts even if done in )ood faith, that
o;cial is lia/le. As a matter of fact, we %now
that there are ver+ few pu/lic o;cials who
openl+ and de"nitel+ a/use the individual
ri)hts of the citi=ens. In most cases, the a/use
is usti"ed on a plea of desire to enforce the
law to compl+ with ones dut+. And so, if we
should limit the scope of this article, that would
practicall+ nullif+ the o/ect of the article.Precisel+, the openin) o/ect of the article is to
put an end to a/uses which are usti"ed /+ a
plea of )ood faith, which is in most cases the
plea of o;cials a/usin) individual ri)hts. 2/
ut defendant5appellee 'rlando (addela
cannot /e held accounta/le /ecause he
impounded the motor launch upon the order of
his superior o;cer. hile a su/ordinate o;cer
ma+ /e held lia/le for e2ecutin) unlawful
orders of his superior o;cer, there are certain
circumstances which would warrant (addelas
e2culpation from lia/ilit+. &he records show
that after Fiscal Ponce de #eon made his "rst
request to the Provincial Commander on $une
1-, 163 (addela was reluctant to impound
the motor launch despite repeated orders from
his superior o;cer.21 It was onl+ after he was
furnished a cop+ of the repl+ of Fiscal Ponce de
#eon, dated $une 36, 163, to the letter of the
Provincial Commander, ustif+in) the necessit+
of the sei=ure of the motor launch on the
)round that the su/sequent sale of the launchto !el"n #im could not prevent the court from
ta%in) custod+ of the same, 22 that he
impounded the motor launch on $ul+ 6, 163.
ith said letter comin) from the le)al o;cer of
the province, (addela was led to /elieve that
there was a le)al /asis and authorit+ to
impound the launch. &hen came the order of
his superior o;cer to e2plain for the dela+ in
the sei=ure of the motor launch. 2 Faced with a
possi/le disciplinar+ action from his
Commander, (addela was left with no
alternative /ut to sei=e the vessel. In the li)ht
of the a/ove circumstances. e are not
disposed to hold (addela answera/le for
dama)es.
IN GI: 'F &: F'9:H'INH, the decision
appealed from is here/+ reversed and another
one entered declarin) the sei=ure ille)al and
orderin) defendant5appellee Fiscal Francisco
Ponce de #eon to pa+ to plainti*5appellant!el"n #im the sum of P?,. as actual
dama)es, plus P1,. moral dama)es, and,
in addition, P<-. for attorne+s fees. ith
costs a)ainst defendant5appellee Fiscal Ponce
de #eon.
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 5/49
G.R. No. L-9 A!0#" 15, 19
R)GELI) AER'A, R)D)LF) EN)(A,NE(T)R )DIN) N)EL ETAAG DANIL) DELA FENTE, ELEN DIA3-FL)RE(, MANELMARI) G3MAN, ALAN JA3MINE3, EDINL)*E3, ALFRED) MAN()(, ALEMAR'ELIN), ELI3AET *R)TA'I)-
MAR'ELIN), J)(E* )LA6ER, 'ARL)(*ALMA, MAR') *AL), R)LAND) (ALTIN,ENJAMIN (E(GND), ARTR) TAARA,EDIN TLALIAN and REE''ATLALIAN petitioners,
vs.
MAJ. GEN. FAIAN ER, ')L. FIDEL(ING()N, ')L. R)LAND) AADILLA, ')L.GERARD) . LANT)RIA, ')L. GALILE)KINTANAR, 1(T LT. ')L. *ANFIL) M.LA'()N, MAJ. R)D)LF) AGINALD),'A*T. DANIL) *I3ARR), 1(T LT. *EDR)TANG), 1(T LT. R)ME) RI'ARD), 1(T LT.RAL A'AL(), M(GT IENENID)ALAA and REGI)NAL TRIAL ')RT,Nat#ona" 'a!#ta" Jud#8#a" R%g#on, 0an8' :95;, <u%=on '#t>, respondents.
6A*, J.:
&his petition for certiorari presents vital issues
not heretofore passed upon /+ this Court. It
poses the question whether the suspension of
the privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus /arsa civil action for dama)es for ille)al searches
conducted /+ militar+ personnel and other
violations of ri)hts and li/erties )uaranteed
under the Constitution. If such action for
dama)es ma+ /e maintained, who can /e held
lia/le for such violationsB onl+ the militar+
personnel directl+ involved and7or their
superiors as well.
&his case stems from alle)ed ille)al searches
and sei=ures and other violations of the ri)htsand li/erties of plainti*s /+ various intelli)ence
units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
%nown as &as% Force (a%a/ansa >&F(@ ordered
/+ Heneral Fa/ian Ger to conduct pre5emptive
stri%es a)ainst %nown communist5terrorist >C&@
under)round houses in view of increasin)
reports a/out C& plans to sow distur/ances in
(etro (anila, Plainti*s alle)e, amon) others,
that compl+in) with said order, elements of the
&F( raided several places, emplo+in) in mostcases defectivel+ issued udicial search
warrants0 that durin) these raids, certain
mem/ers of the raidin) part+ con"scated a
num/er of purel+ personal items /elon)in) to
plainti*s0 that plainti*s were arrested without
proper warrants issued /+ the courts0 that for
some period after their arrest, the+ were
denied visits of relatives and law+ers0 that
plainti*s were interro)ated in violation of their
ri)hts to silence and counsel0 that militar+ men
who interro)ated them emplo+ed threats,
tortures and other forms of violence on them in
order to o/tain incriminator+ information or
confessions and in order to punish them0 that
all violations of plainti*s constitutional ri)hts
were part of a concerted and deli/erate plan to
forci/l+ e2tract information and incriminator+
statements from plainti*s and to terrori=e,
harass and punish them, said plans /ein)
previousl+ %nown to and sanctioned /+
defendants.
Plainti*s sou)ht actual7compensator+ dama)esamountin) to P?,?.0 moral dama)es in
the amount of at least P1-,. each or a
total of P?,,.0 e2emplar+ dama)es in
the amount of at least P1-,. each or a
total of P?,,.0 and attorne+s fees
amountin) to not less than P3,..
A motion to dismiss was "led /+ defendants,
throu)h their counsel, then 8olicitor5Heneral
:stelito (endo=a, alle)in) that >1@ plainti*s
ma+ not cause a udicial inquir+ into the
circumstances of their detention in the )uise of
a dama)e suit /ecause, as to them, the
privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus is
suspended0 >3@ assumin) that the courts can
entertain the present action, defendants are
immune from lia/ilit+ for acts done in the
performance of their o;cial duties0 and >?@ the
complaint states no cause of action a)ainst the
defendants. 'pposition to said motion to
dismiss was "led /+ plainti*s (arco Palo,!anilo de la Fuente, enamin 8es)undo, Nel
:ta/a), Alfredo (ansos and 9olando 8alutin on
$ul+ E, 1E?, and /+ plainti*s :dwin #ope=,
(anuel (ario Hu=man, Alan $asmine=, Nestor
odino, Carlos Palma, Arturo &a/ara, $oseph
'la+er, 9odolfo enosa, elen !ia=, Flores,
9o)elio A/erca, Ale2 (arcelino and :li=a/eth
(arcelino on $ul+ 31, 1E?. 'n Novem/er <,
1E?, a Consolidated 9epl+ was "led /+
defendants counsel.
&hen, on Novem/er E, 1E?, the 9e)ional &rial
Court, National Capital 9e)ion, ranch -,
$ud)e illelmo C. Fortun, Presidin), 1 issued a
resolution )rantin) the motion to dismiss. I
sustained, loc%, stoc% and /arrel, the
defendants contention >1@ the plainti*s ma+
not cause a udicial inquir+ into the
circumstances of their detention in the )uise of
a dama)e suit /ecause, as to them, the
privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus is
suspended0 >3@ that assumin) that the court
can entertain the present action, defendantsare immune from lia/ilit+ for acts done in the
performance of their o;cial duties0 and >?@ that
the complaint states no cause of action a)ainst
defendants, since there is no alle)ation that
the defendants named in the complaint
con"scated plainti*s purel+ personal
properties in violation of their constitutional
ri)hts, and with the possi/le e2ception of (aor
9odolfo A)uinaldo and 8er)eant ienvenido
ala/o committed acts of torture and
maltreatment, or that the defendants had the
dut+ to e2ercise direct supervision and control
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 6/49
of their su/ordinates or that the+ had vicarious
lia/ilit+ as emplo+ers under Article 31E of the
Civil Code. &he lower court stated, After a
careful stud+ of defendants ar)uments, the
court "nds the same to /e meritorious and
must, therefore, /e )ranted. 'n the other
hand, plainti*s ar)uments in their opposition
are lac%in) in merit.
A motion to set aside the order dismissin) the
complaint and a supplemental motion for
reconsideration was "led /+ the plainti*s on
Novem/er 1E, 1E?, and Novem/er 34, 1E?,
respectivel+. 'n !ecem/er , 1E?, the
defendants "led a comment on the aforesaid
motion of plainti*s, furnishin) a cop+ thereof to
the attorne+s of all the plainti*s, namel+, Att+s.
$ose . !io%no, Procopio eltran, 9ene
8armiento, :fren (ercado, Au)uso 8anche=,
Antonio #. 9osales, Pedro . :lla $r., Arno G.
8anidad, Ale2ander Padilla, $o%er Arro+o, 9ene
8a)uisa), 9amon :s)uerra and Felicitas
Aquino.
'n !ecem/er 1-, 1E?, $ud)e Fortun issued an
order voluntaril+ inhi/itin) himself from further
proceedin) in the case and leavin) the
resolution of the motion to set aside the order
of dismissal to $ud)e #isin), to preclude an+
suspicion that he >$ud)e Fortun@ cannot resolve
theJ aforesaid pendin) motion with the cold
neutralit+ of an impartial ud)e and to put anend to plainti*s assertion that the undersi)ned
has no authorit+ or urisdiction to resolve said
pendin) motion. &his order prompted plainti*s
to reesolve an ampli"cator+ motion for
reconsideration si)ned in the name of the Free
#e)al Assistance Hroup >F#AH@ of (a/ini #e)al
Aid Committee, /+ Att+s. $o%er P. Arro+o,
Felicitas Aquino and Arno 8anidad on April 13,
1E4. 'n (a+ 3,1E4, the defendants "led a
comment on said ampli"cator+ motion for
reconsideration.
In an order dated (a+ 11, 1E4, the trial court,
$ud)e :ste/an #isin), Presidin), without actin)
on the motion to set aside order of Novem/er
E, 1E?, issued an order, as followsB
It appearin) from the records that, indeed, the
followin) plainti*s, 9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de la
Fuente and (arco Palo, represented /+
counsel, Att+. $ose . !io%no, Alan $asmine=represented /+ counsel, Att+. Au)usta 8anche=,
8pouses Ale2 (arcelino and :li=a/eth Protacio5
(arcelino, represented /+ counsel, Att+.
Procopio eltran, Alfredo (ansos represented
/+ counsel, Att+. 9ene 8armiento, and 9olando
8alutin, represented /+ counsel, Att+. :fren
(ercado, failed to "le a motion to reconsider
the 'rder of Novem/er E, 1E?, dismissin) the
complaint, nor interposed an appeal therefrom
within the re)lementar+ period, as pra+ed for
/+ the defendants, said 'rder is now "nal
a)ainst said plainti*s.
Assailin) the said order of (a+ 11, 1E4, the
plainti*s "led a motion for reconsideration on
(a+ 3E,1E4, alle)in) that it was not true that
plainti*s 9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de la Fuente,
(arco Palo, Alan $asmine=, Ale2 (arcelino,
:li=a/eth Protacio5(arcelino, Alfredo (ansos
and 9olando 8alutin failed to "le a motion to
reconsider the order of Novem/er E, 1E?
dismissin) the complaint, within the
re)lementar+ period. Plainti*s claimed that themotion to set aside the order of Novem/er E,
1E? and the ampli"cator+ motion for
reconsideration was "led for all the plainti*s,
althou)h si)ned /+ onl+ some of the law+ers.
In its resolution of 8eptem/er 31, 1E4, the
respondent court dealt with /oth motions >1@ to
reconsider its order of (a+ 11, 1E4 declarin)
that with respect to certain plainti*s, the
resolution of Novem/er E, 1E? had alread+
/ecome "nal, and >3@ to set aside its resolutionof Novem/er E, 1E? )rantin) the defendants
motion to dismiss. In the dispositive portion of
the order of 8eptem/er 31, 1E4, the
respondent court resolvedB
>1@ &hat the motion to set aside the order of
"nalit+, dated (a+ 11, 1E4, of the 9esolution
of dismissal of the complaint of plainti*s
9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de la Fuente, (arco
Palo, Alan $asmine= Ale2 (arcelino, :li=a/ethProtacio5(arcelino, Alfredo (ansos and
9olando 8alutin is deed for lac% of merit0K
>3@ For lac% of cause of action as a)ainst the
followin) defendants, to witB
1. Hen Fa/ian Ger
3. Col. Fidel 8in)son
?. Col. 9olando A/adilla
4. #t. Col. Conrado #antoria, $r.
-. Col. Halileo (ontanar
6. Col. Pan"lo #acson
<. Capt. !anilo Pi=aro
E. 1 #t Pedro &an)o
. #t. 9omeo 9icardo
1. #t. 9aul acalso
the motion to set aside and reconsider the
9esolution of dismissal of the present action or
complaint, dated Novem/er E, 1E?, is also
denied /ut in so far as it a*ects and refers to
defendants, to witB
1. (aor 9odolfo A)uinaldo, and
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 7/49
3. (aster 8)t. ienvenido ala/a
the motion to reconsider and set aside the
9esolution of dismissal dated Novem/er ?,
1E? is )ranted and the 9esolution of dismissal
is, in this respect, reconsidered and modi"ed.
ence, petitioners "led the instant petition for
certiorari on (arch 1-, 1E- see%in) to annuland set aside the respondent courts resolution
of Novem/er E, 1E?, its order of (a+ 11,
1E4, and its resolution dated 8eptem/er 31,
1E4. 9espondents were required to comment
on the petition, which it did on Novem/er ,
1E-. A repl+ was "led /+ petitioners on
Au)ust 36, 1E6.
e "nd the petition meritorious and decide to
)ive it due course.
At the heart of petitioners complaint is Article
?3 of the Civil Code which providesB
A9&. ?3. An+ pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee, or an+
private individual who directl+ or indirectl+
o/structs, defeats, violates or in an+ manner
impedes or impairs an+ of the followin) ri)hts
and li/erties of another person shall /e lia/le
to the latter for dama)esB
>1@ Freedom of reli)ion0
>3@ Freedom of speech0
>?@ Freedom to write for the press or to
maintain a periodical pu/lication0
>4@ Freedom from ar/itrar+ or ille)al detention0
>-@ Freedom of su*ra)e0
>6@ &he ri)ht a)ainst deprivation of propert+without due process
><@ of law0
>E@ &he ri)ht to a ust compensation when
private propert+ is ta%en for pu/lic use0
>@ &he ri)ht to the equal protection of the
laws0
>1@ &he ri)ht to /e secure in ones person,
house, papers, and e*ects a)ainst
unreasona/le searches and sei=ures0
>11@ &he li/ert+ of a/ode and of chan)in) the
same0
>13@ &he privac+ of cmmunication and
correspondence0
>1?@ &he ri)ht to /ecome a mem/er of
associations or societies for purposes not
contrar+ to law0
>14@ &he ri)ht to ta%e part in a peacea/le
assem/l+ to petition the Hovernment for
redress of )rievances0
>1-@ &he ri)ht to /e free from involuntar+
servitude in an+ form0
>16@ &he ri)th of the accused a)ainst e2cessive
/ail0
>1<@ &he ri)th of the aaccused to /e heard /+
himself and counsel, to /e informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation a)ainst
him, to have a speed+ and pu/lic trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsor+ process to secure the attendance
of witness in /ehalf0
>1E@ Freedom from /ein) compelled to /e a
witness a)ainst ones self, or from /ein) forcedto confess )uilt, or from /ein) induced /+ a
promise of immunit+ or reward to ma%e such
confession, e2cept when the person confessin)
/ecomes a 8tate witness0
>1@ Freedom from e2cessive "nes or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inicted in accordance with a
statute which has not /een udiciall+ declared
unconstitutional0 and
>3@ Freedom of access to the courts.
In an+ of the cases referred to in this article,
whether or not the defendants act or omission
constitutes a criminal o*ense, the a)ainst
)rieved part+ has a ri)ht to commence an
entirel+ separate and distinct civil action for
dama)es, and for other relief. 8uch civil action
shall proceed independentl+ of an+ criminal
prosecution >if the latter /e instituted@, andma+ /e proved /+ a preponderance of
evidence.
&he indemnit+ shall include moral dama)es.
:2emplar+ dama)es ma+ also /e adudicated.
&he responsi/ilit+ herein set forth is not
demanda/le from a ud)e unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
It is o/vious that the purpose of the a/ove
codal provision is to provide a sanction to the
deepl+ cherished ri)hts and freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution. Its messa)e is
clear0 no man ma+ see% to violate those sacred
ri)hts with impunit+. In times of )reat upheaval
or of social and political stress, when the
temptation is stron)est to +ield L /orrowin)
the words of Chief $ustice Claudio &eehan%ee L
to the law of force rather than the force of law,
it is necessar+ to remind ourselves that certain
/asic ri)hts and li/erties are immuta/le and
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 8/49
cannot /e sacri"ced to the transient needs or
imperious demands of the rulin) power. &he
rule of law must prevail, or else li/ert+ will
perish. 'ur commitment to democratic
principles and to the rule of law compels us to
reect the view which reduces law to nothin)
/ut the e2pression of the will of the
predominant power in the communit+.
!emocrac+ cannot /e a rei)n of pro)ress, of li/ert+, of ustice, unless the law is respected
/+ him who ma%es it and /+ him for whom it is
made. Now this respect implies a ma2imum of
faith, a minimum of Idealism. 'n )oin) to the
/ottom of the matter, we discover that life
demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment
which is not derived from reason, /ut which
reason nevertheless controls. 2
8ee%in) to ustif+ the dismissal of plainti*s
complaint, the respondents postulate the view
that as pu/lic o;cers the+ are covered /+ the
mantle of state immunit+ from suit for acts
done in the performance of o;cial duties or
function In support of said contention,
respondents maintain that L
9espondents are mem/ers of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines. &heir primar+ dut+ is to
safe)uard pu/lic safet+ and order. &he
Constitution no less provides that the President
ma+ call them to prevent or supress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection or re/ellion, orimminent dan)er thereof. >Constitution, Article
GII, 8ection @.
'n $anuar+ 1<, 1E1, the President issued
Proclamation No. 34- liftin) martial law /ut
providin) for the continued suspension of the
privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus in view of
the remainin) dan)ers to the securit+ of the
nation. &he proclamation also provided that
the call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines
to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
insuitection re/ellion and su/version shall
continue to /e in force and e*ect.
Petitioners alle)e in their complaint that their
causes of action proceed from respondent
Heneral Gers order to &as% Force (a%a/ansa to
launch pre5emptive stri%es a)ainst communist
terrorist under)round houses in (etro (anila.
Petitioners claim that this order and itssu/sequent implementation /+ elements of the
tas% force resulted in the violation of their
constitutional ri)hts a)ainst unlawful searches,
sei=ures and arrest, ri)hts to counsel and to
silence, and the ri)ht to propert+ and that,
therefore, respondents Ger and the named
mem/ers of the tas% force should /e held lia/le
for dama)es.
ut, /+ launchin) a pre5emptive stri%e a)ainst
communist terrorists, respondent mem/ers of
the armed forces merel+ performed their
o;cial and constitutional duties. &o allow
petitioners to recover from respondents /+ wa+
of dama)es for acts performed in the e2ercise
of such duties run contrar+ to the polic+
considerations to shield respondents as pu/lic
o;cers from undue interference with their
duties and from potentiall+ disa/lin) threats of
ha/ilit+ >Aarlon v. Fit=)erald 13 8. Ct. 3<?151
For/es v. Chuoco &iaco, 16 Phil. 6?4@, and upon
the necessit+ of protectin) the performance of
)overnmental and pu/lic functions from /ein)harassed undul+ or constantl+ interrupted /+
private suits >(cCallan v. 8tate, ?- Cal. App.
6-0 (etran v. Paredes, < Phil. E1@.
&he immunit+ of pu/lic o;cers from lia/ilit+
arisin) from the performance of their duties is
now a settled urisprudence Al=ua v. $ohnson,
31 Phil. ?E0 Mulueta v. Nicolas, 13 Phil. 440
8paldin) v. Gilas, 161 D8 4E?0 4 #. :d. <E, 16
8. Ct. 6?10 arr v. (ateo, ?60 ut= v.
:conomon, 4?E D8 4<E0 -< #. :d. 3d E-, E 8.Ct. 3E40 8cheuer v. 9hodes, 416 D8 3?30
For/es v. Chuoco &iaco, supra0 (iller v. de
#eune, 63 F. 3d 1E0 8ami v. D8, 61< F. 3d
<--@.
9espondents5defendants who merel+ o/e+ed
the lawful orders of the President and his call
for the suppression of the re/ellion involvin)
petitioners eno+ such immunit+ from 8uit.
e "nd respondents invocation of the doctrine
of state immunit+ from suit totall+ misplaced.
&he cases invo%ed /+ respondents actuall+
involved acts done /+ o;cers in the
performance of o;cial duties written the am/it
of their powers. As held in For/es, etc. vs.
Chuoco &iaco and Cross"eldB 4
No one can /e held le)all+ responsi/le in
dama)es or otherwise for doin) in a le)al
manner what he had authorit+, under the law,to do. &herefore, if the Hovernor5Heneral had
authorit+, under the law to deport or e2pel the
defendants, and circumstances ustif+in) the
deportation and the method of carr+in) it out
are left to him, then he cannot /e held lia/le in
dama)es for the e2ercise of this power.
(oreover, if the courts are without authorit+ to
interfere in an+ manner, for the purpose of
controllin) or interferrin) with the e2ercise of
the political powers vested in the chief
e2ecutive authorit+ of the Hovernment, then it
must follow that the courts cannot intervenefor the purpose of declarin) that he is lia/le in
dama)es for the e2eercise of this authorit+.
It ma+ /e that the respondents, as mem/ers of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, were
merel+ respondin) to their dut+, as the+ claim,
to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
insurrection, re/ellion and su/version in
accordance with Proclamation No. 3-4 of
President (arcos, despite the liftin) of martial
law on $anuar+ 3<, 1E1, and in pursuance of such o/ective, to launch pre5 emptive stri%es
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 9/49
a)ainst alle)ed communist terrorist
under)round houses. ut this cannot /e
construed as a /lan%et license or a rovin)
commission untramelled /+ an+ constitutional
restraint, to disre)ard or trans)ress upon the
ri)hts and li/erties of the individual citi=en
enshrined in and protected /+ the Constitution.
&he Constitution remains the supreme law of
the land to which all o;cials, hi)h or low,civilian or militar+, owe o/edience and
alle)iance at all times.
Article ?3 of the Civil Code which renders an+
pu/lic o;cer or emplo+ee or an+ private
individual lia/le in dama)es for violatin) the
Constitutional ri)hts and li/erties of another, as
enumerated therein, does not e2empt the
respondents from responsi/ilit+. 'nl+ ud)es
are e2cluded from lia/ilit+ under the said
article, provided their acts or omissions do not
constitute a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute.
&his is not to sa+ that militar+ authorities are
restrained from pursuin) their assi)ned tas% or
carr+in) out their mission with vi)or. e have
no quarrel with their dut+ to protect the
9epu/lic from its enemies, whether of the left
or of the ri)ht, or from within or without,
see%in) to destro+ or su/vert our democratic
institutions and imperil their ver+ e2istence.
hat we are merel+ tr+in) to sa+ is that incarr+in) out this tas% and mission,
constitutional and le)al safe)uards must /e
o/served, otherwise, the ver+ fa/ric of our faith
will start to unravel. In the /attle of competin)
Ideolo)ies, the stru))le for the mind is ust as
vital as the stru))le of arms. &he linchpin in
that ps+cholo)ical stru))le is faith in the rule
of law. 'nce that faith is lost or compromised,
the stru))le ma+ well /e a/andoned.
e do not "nd merit in respondentssu))estion that plainti*s cause of action is
/arred /+ the suspension of the privile)e of the
writ of ha/eas corpus. 9espondents contend
that Petitioners cannot circumvent the
suspension of the privile)e of the writ /+
resortin) to a dama)e suit aimed at the same
purpose5udicial inquir+ into the alle)ed
ille)alit+ of their detention. hile the main
relief the+ as% /+ the present action is
indemni"cation for alle)ed dama)es the+su*ered, their causes of action are ine2trica/l+
/ased on the same claim of violations of their
constitutional ri)hts that the+ invo%ed in the
ha/eas corpus case as )rounds for release
from detention. ere the petitioners allowed
the present suit, the udicial inquir+ /arred /+
the suspension of the privile)e of the writ will
ta%e place. &he net result is that what the
courts cannot do, i.e. override the suspension
ordered /+ the President, petitioners will /e
a/le to do /+ the mere e2pedient of alterin)
the title of their action.
e do not a)ree. e "nd merit in petitioners
contention that the suspension of the privile)e
of the writ of ha/eas corpus does not destro+
petitioners ri)ht and cause of action for
dama)es for ille)al arrest and detention and
other violations of their constitutional ri)hts.
&he suspension does not render valid an
otherwise ille)al arrest or detention. hat is
suspended is merel+ the ri)ht of the individual
to see% release from detention throu)h the writof ha/eas corpus as a speed+ means of
o/tainin) his li/ert+.
(oreover, as pointed out /+ petitioners, their
ri)ht and cause of action for dama)es are
e2plicitl+ reco)ni=ed in P.!. No. 1<-- which
amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code /+
addin) the followin) to its te2tB
owever, when the action >for inur+ to the
ri)hts of the plainti* or for a quasi5delict@ arisesfrom or out of an+ act, activit+ or conduct of
an+ pu/lic o;cer involvin) the e2ercise of
powers or authorit+ arisin) from (artial #aw
includin) the arrest, detention and7or trial of
the plainti*, the same must /e /rou)ht within
one >1@ +ear.
Petitioners have a point in contendin) that
even assumin) that the suspension of the
privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus suspendspetitioners ri)ht of action for dama)es for
ille)al arrest and detention, it does not and
cannot suspend their ri)hts and causes of
action for inuries su*ered /ecause of
respondents con"scation of their private
/elon)in)s, the violation of their ri)ht to
remain silent and to counsel and their ri)ht to
protection a)ainst unreasona/le searches and
sei=ures and a)ainst torture and other cruel
and inhuman treatment.
owever, we "nd it unnecessar+ to address the
constitutional issue pressed upon us. 'n (arch
3-, 1E6, President Cora=on C. Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 3, revo%in) Proclamation Nos.
34- and 34-5A and liftin) the suspension of
the privile)e of the writ of ha/eas corpus. &he
question therefore has /ecome moot and
academic.
&his /rin)s us to the crucial issue raised in this
petition. (a+ a superior o;cer under the
notion of respondent superior /e answera/lefor dama)es, ointl+ and severall+ with his
su/ordinates, to the person whose
constitutional ri)hts and li/erties have /een
violated
9espondents contend that the doctrine
of respondent superior is applica/le to the
case. e a)ree. &he doctrine of respondent
superior has /een )enerall+ limited in its
application to principal and a)ent or to master
and servant >i.e. emplo+er and emplo+ee@relationship. No such relationship e2ists
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 10/49
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 11/49
Appl+in) this test, it is di;cult to ustif+ the
trial courts rulin), dismissin) for lac% of cause
of action the complaint a)ainst all the
defendants, e2cept (aor 9odolfo A)uinaldo
and (aster 8)t. ienvenido ala/a. &he
complaint contained alle)ations a)ainst all the
defendants which, if admitted h+potheticall+,
would /e su;cient to esta/lish a cause or
causes of action a)ainst all of them underArticle ?3 of the Civil Code.
&his /rin)s us to the last issue. as the trial
court correct in dismissin) the complaint with
respect to plainti*s 9o)elio A/erca, !anilo de
la Puente, (arco Palo, Alan $a=mine=, Ale2
(arcelino, :li=a/eth Protacio5(arcelino, Alfredo
(ansos and 9olando 8alutin, on the /asis of
the alle)ed failure of said plainti*s to "le a
motion for reconsideration of the courts
resolution of Novem/er E, 1E?, )rantin) the
respondents motion to dismiss
It is undisputed that a timel+ motion to set
aside said order of Novem/er E, 1E? was "led
/+ plainti*s, throu)h counsel. &rue, the motion
was si)ned onl+ /+ Att+. $o%er P. Arro+o,
counsel for enamin 8es)ulido0 Att+. Antonio
9osales, counsel for :dwin #ope= and (anuel
(artin Hu=man0 Att+. Pedro . :lla, $r., counsel
for Nestor odino and Carlos Palma0 Att+. Arno
G. 8anidad, counsel for Arturo &a/ara0 Att+.
Felicitas 8. Aquino, counsel for $oseph 'la+er0and Att+. Ale2ander Padilla, counsel for 9odolfo
enosa.
ut the /od+ of the motion itself clearl+
indicated that the motion was "led on /ehalf of
all the plainti*s. And this must have /een also
the understandin) of defendants counsel
himself for when he "led his comment on the
motion, he furnished copies thereof, not ust to
the law+ers who si)ned the motion, /ut to all
the law+ers of plainti*s, to witB Att+s. $ose!io%no, Procopio eltran, 9ene 8armiento,
:fren (ercado, Au)usto 8anche=, Antonio
9osales, Pedro :a $r., Arno 8anidad, Ale2ander
Padilla, $o%er Arro+o, 9ene 8a)uisa), 9amon
:s)uerra and Felicitas 8. Aquino.
In "lin) the motion to set aside the resolution
of Novem/er E, 1E?, the si)nin) attorne+s did
so on /ehalf of all the plainti*. &he+ needed no
speci"c authorit+ to do that. &he authorit+ of an attorne+ to appear for and in /ehalf of a
part+ can /e assumed, unless questioned or
challen)ed /+ the adverse part+ or the part+
concerned, which was never done in this case.
&hus, it was )rave a/use on the part of
respondent ud)e to ta%e it upon himself to rule
that the motion to set aside the order of
Novem/er E, 1-? dismissin) the complaint
was "led onl+ /+ some of the plainti*s, when
/+ its ver+ lan)ua)e it was clearl+ intended to
/e "led /+ and for the /ene"t of all of them. It
is o/vious that the respondent ud)e too%
um/ra)e under a contrived technicalit+ to
declare that the dismissal of the complaint had
alread+ /ecome "nal with respect to some of
the plainti*s whose law+ers did not si)n the
motion for reconsideration. 8uch action tainted
with le)al in"rmit+ cannot /e sanctioned.
Accordin)l+, we )rant the petition and annul
and set aside the resolution of the respondent
court, dated Novem/er E, 1E?, its order dated
(a+ 11, 1E4 and its resolution dated8eptem/er 31, 1E4. #et the case /e
remanded to the respondent court for further
proceedin)s. ith costs a)ainst private
respondents.
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 12/49
G.R. No. 72/ (%!t%?@%0 2, 1994M* GARMENT(, IN'., and LARR6 '. DEG3MAN, !%t#t#on%0s,&s.TE )N)RALE ')RT )F A**EAL(,AGNE( ILLA 'R3, MIRA()L LGATIMAN,and GERTRDE( G)N3ALE(, 0%s!ond%nts.*N), J.:
&he constitutional protection of our peoplea)ainst unreasona/le search and sei=ure is not
merel+ a pleasin) platitude. It vouchsafes our
ri)ht to privac+ and di)nit+ a)ainst undesira/le
intrusions committed /+ an+ pu/lic o;cer or
private individual. An infrin)ement of this ri)ht
usti"es an award for dama)es.
'n Fe/ruar+ 33, 1E?, petitioner (P
Harments, Inc., was awarded /+ the o+ 8couts
of the Philippines, the e2clusive franchise to
sell and distri/ute o;cial o+ 8couts uniforms,supplies, /ad)es, and insi)nias. In their
(emorandum A)reement, petitioner
corporation was )iven the authorit+ to
underta%e or cause to /e underta%en the
prosecution in court of all ille)al sources of
scout uniforms and other scoutin) supplies. 1
8ometime in 'cto/er 1E?, petitioner
corporation received information that private
respondents A)nes Gilla Cru=, (irasol
#u)atiman, and Hertrudes Hon=ales were
sellin) o+ 8couts items and paraphernaliawithout an+ authorit+. Petitioner de Hu=man, an
emplo+ee of petitioner corporation, was tas%ed
to underta%e the necessar+ surveillance and to
ma%e a report to the Philippine Consta/ular+
>PC@.
'n 'cto/er 3-, 1E?, at a/out 1B? A.(.,
petitioner de Hu=man, Captain 9enato (.
Pea"el, and two >3@ other consta/ular+ men of
the 9eaction Force attalion, 8i%atuna Gilla)e,
!iliman, Que=on Cit+ went to the stores of respondents at the (ari%ina Pu/lic (ar%et.
ithout an+ warrant, the+ sei=ed the /o+ and
)irl scouts pants, dresses, and suits on displa+
at respondents stalls. &he sei=ure caused a
commotion and em/arrassed private
respondents. 9eceipts were issued for the
sei=ed items. &he items were then turned over
/+ Captain Pea"el to petitioner corporation for
safe%eepin).
A criminal complaint for unfair competition was
then "led a)ainst private respondents. 2 !urin)
its pendenc+, petitioner de Hu=man e2acted
from private respondent #u)atiman the sum of
&9:: &'D8AN! 'N: DN!9:! P:8'8
>P?,1.@ in order to /e dropped from the
complaint. 'n !ecem/er 6, 1E?, after a
preliminar+ investi)ation, the Provincial Fiscal
of 9i=al dismissed the complaint a)ainst all the
private respondents. 'n Fe/ruar+ 6, 1E4, he
also ordered the return of the sei=ed items. &he
sei=ed items were not immediatel+ returned
despite demands. Private respondents had to
)o personall+ to petitioners place of /usiness
to recover their )oods. :ven then, not all the
sei=ed items were returned. &he other items
returned were of inferior qualit+.
Private respondents then "led Civil Case No.
-1144 a)ainst the petitioners for sums of
mone+ and dama)es. 4 In its !ecision dated
$anuar+ , 1E<, the trial court ruled for the
private respondents, thusB
:9:F'9:, ud)ment is here/+ rendered in
favor of plainti*s and a)ainst defendants,
orderin) the latter ointl+ and severall+B
1. &o return the amount of P?,1. to plainti*
(irasol #u)atiman with interest at 13R per
annum from $anuar+ 13, 1E4, the date of the
last receipt issued, until full+ paid0
3. &o pa+ plainti* A)nes Gilla Cru= the sum of
P3,. for the 36 pieces of )irl scout items
not returned0
?. &o pa+ plainti*s the amount of P-,.
for and as moral dama)es and P1-,. for
and as e2emplar+ dama)es0 and
4. P-,. for and as attorne+s fees andliti)ation e2penses.
Costs a)ainst the defendants.
8' '9!:9:!.
&he decision was appealed to the respondent
court. 'n $anuar+ 1E, 1E, its Fifth
!ivision, 5 a;rmed the !ecision with
modi"cation, thusB
:9:F'9:, the decision appealed from is
AFFI9(:! with ('!IFICA&I'N0 and, as
modi"ed, the dispositive portion thereof now
reads as followsB
$ud)ment is here/+ rendered in favor of
plainti*s >private respondents@ and a)ainst
defendants >petitioners@, orderin) the latter
ointl+ and severall+0
1. &o return the amount of P?,1. to plainti* >respondent@ (irasol #u)atiman and cancel her
application for distri/utors license0
3. &o pa+ plainti* >respondent@ A)nes Gilla Cru=
the sum of P3,. for the unreturned 36
pieces of )irl scouts items with interest at 13R
per annum from $une 4, 1E4 >date the
complaint was "led@ until it is full+ paid0
?. &o pa+ plainti*s >respondents@ the amount of
P1,. each, or a total of P?,., forand as moral dama)es0 and P-,. each, or
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 13/49
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 14/49
indirectly o/structs, defeats, violates or in an+
manner impedes or impairs an+ of the
followin) ri)hts and li/erties of another person
shall /e lia/le to the latter for dama)es.
>@ &he ri)hts to /e secure in ones person,
house, papers, and e*ects a)ainst
unreasona/le searches and sei=ures.
&he indemnit+ shall include moral dama)es.
:2emplar+ dama)es ma+ also /e adud)ed.
Art. 331. (oral dama)es ma+ /e recovered in
the followin) and analo)ous cases
>6@ Ille)al search0
>1@ Acts and actions referred to in Articles 31,
36, 3<, 3E, 3, ?, +,, ?4, and ?-.
Pursuant to the fore)oin) provisions, a person
whose constitutional ri)hts have /een violated
or impaired is entitled to actual and moral
dama)es from the pu/lic o;cer or employee
responsi-le therefor . In addition, e2emplar+
dama)es ma+ also /e awarded.
&he ver+ nature of Article ?3 is that the wron)
ma+ /e civil or criminal. It is not necessar+
therefore that there should /e malice or /ad
faith. &o ma%e such a requisite would defeatthe main purpose of Article ?3 which is the
e*ective protection of individual ri)hts. Pu/lic
o;cials in the past have a/used their powers
on the prete2t of usti"a/le motives or )ood
faith in the performance of their duties.
Precisel+, the o/ect of the Article is to put an
end to o;cial a/use /+ plea of the )ood faith.
In the Dnited 8tates this remed+ is in the
nature of a tort. >emphasis supplied@
In the su/sequent case of $-erca vs. er , 1/ the
Court En Banc e2plained the lia/ilit+ of persons
indirectl+ responsi/le,vi/ B
&Jhe decisive factor in this case, in our view, is
the lan)ua)e of Article ?3. &he law spea%s of
an o;cer or employee or person 0directly or
indirectly0 responsi/le for the violation of the
constitutional ri)hts and li/erties of another. &hus, it is not the actor alone >i.e., the one
directl+ responsi/le@ who must answer for
dama)es under Article ?30 the person indirectl+
responsi/le has also to answer for the dama)es
or inur+ caused to the a))rieved part+.
hile it would certainl+ /e too naive to e2pect
that violators of human ri)hts would easil+ /e
deterred /+ the prospect of facin) dama)es
suits, it should nonetheless /e made clear in no
uncertain terms that Article ?3 of the Civil Code
ma%es the persons who are directl+, as well as
indirectly responsi-le for the transgression
1oint tortfeasors.
NJeither can it /e said that onl+ those shown
to have participated directl+ should /e held
lia/le. Article ?3 of the Civil Code encompasses
within the am/it of its provisions those
directl+, as well as indirectly responsi-le for its
violations. >emphasis supplied@
Appl+in) the aforecited provisions and leadin)
cases, the respondent court correctl+ )ranted
dama)es to private respondents. Petitioners
were indirectly involved in trans)ressin) the
ri)ht of private respondents a)ainst
unreasona/le search and sei=ure. Firstl+, the+
insti)ated the raid pursuant to their covenant
in the (emorandum A)reement to underta%e
the prosecution in court of all ille)al sources of
scoutin) supplies. 11 As correctl+ o/served /+
respondent courtB
Indeed, the acts committed /+ the PC soldiers
of unlawfull+ sei=in) appellees >respondents@
merchandise and of "lin) the criminal
complaint for unfair competition a)ainst
appellees >respondents@ were for the protection
and /ene"t of appellant >petitioner@
corporation. 8uch /ein) the case, it is, thus,
reasona/l+ fair to infer from those acts that it
was upon appellant 2petitioner3 corporation4sinstance that the *C soldiers conducted the
raid and e5ected the illegal sei/ure. &hese
circumstances should answer the trial courts
quer+ L posed in its decision now under
consideration L as to why the *C soldiers
immediately turned over the sei/ed
merchandise to appellant 2petitioner3
corporation. 12
&he raid was conducted with the active
participation of their emplo+ee. #arr+ de
Hu=man did not lift a "n)er to stop the sei=ure
of the /o+ and )irl scouts items. + standin) /+
and apparently assenting thereto, he was lia/le
to the same e2tent as the o;cers
themselves. 1 8o with the petitioner
corporation which even received for
safe%eepin) the )oods unreasona/l+ sei=ed /+
the PC raidin) team and de Hu=man, and
refused to surrender them for quite a time
despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair
competition.
8econdl+, #etter of Instruction No. 13 was
precisel+ crafted on (arch , 1E? to
safe)uard not onl+ the privile)e of franchise
holder of scoutin) items /ut also the citi=ens
constitutional ri)hts, to wit B
&I&#:B APP9::N8I'N 'F DNAD&'9IM:!
(ANDFAC&D9:98 AN! !I8&9ID&'98 'F
8C'D& PA9AP:9NA#IA AN! I(P'DN!INH 'F
8AI! PA9AP:9NA#IA.
A8&9AC&B
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 15/49
!irects all law enforcement a)encies of the
9epu/lic of the Philippines, to apprehend
immediatel+ unauthori=ed manufacturers and
distri/utors of 8cout paraphernalia, upon
proper application -y the Boy Scouts of the
*hilippines and6or %irl Scouts of the *hilippines
for warrant of arrest and6or search warrant
with a 1udge or such other responsi-le o7cer
as may -e authori/ed -y law 0 and to impoundthe said paraphernalia to /e used as evidence
in court or other appropriate administrative
/od+. 'rders the immediate and strict
compliance with the "nstructions. 14
Dnder the a/ove provision and as
aforediscussed, petitioners misera/l+ failed to
report the unlawful peddlin) of scoutin) )oods
to the o+ 8couts of the Philippines for the
proper application of a warrant. Private
respondents ri)hts are immuta/le and cannot
/e sacri"ced to transient needs. 15 Petitioners
did not have the un/ridled license to cause the
sei=ure of respondents )oods without an+
warrant.
And thirdl+, if petitioners did not have a hand
in the raid, the+ should have "led a third5part+
complaint a)ainst the raidin) team for
contri/ution or an+ other relief, 1 in respect of
respondents claim for 9ecover+ of 8um of
(one+ with !ama)es. A)ain, the+ did not.
e have consistentl+ ruled that moral
dama)es are not awarded to penali=e the
defendant /ut to compensate the plainti* for
the inuries he ma+ have
su*ered. 17 Conforma/l+ with our rulin) in )im
vs. *once de )eon, op. cit ., moral dama)es can
/e awarded in the case at /ench. &here can /e
no dou/t that petitioners must have su*ered
sleepless ni)hts, serious an2iet+, and wounded
feelin)s due the tortious raid caused /+
petitioners. Private respondents avowals of
em/arrassment and humiliation durin) the
sei=ure of their merchandise were supported /+
their testimonies. 9espondent Cru= declaredB
I felt ver+ nervous. I was cr+in) to loss >sic@ m+
)oods and capital /ecause I am doin) /usiness
with /orrowed mone+ onl+, there was
commotion created /+ the raidin) team and
the+ even stepped on some of the pants and
dresses on displa+ for sale. All passers/+stopped to watch and stared at me with
accusin) e2pressions. I was trem/lin) and
terri/l+ ashamed, sir. 1
9espondent #u)atiman testi"edB
I felt ver+ nervous. I was cr+in) and I was ver+
much ashamed /ecause man+ people have
/een watchin) the PC soldiers haulin) m+
items, and man+7I >sic@ heard sa+ na%aw pala
an) m)a i+an for which I am claimin)P3-,. for dama)es. 19
hile respondent Hon=ale= stated thusB
I do not li%e the wa+ the raid was conducted /+
the team sir /ecause it loo%ed li%e that what I
have /een sellin) were stolen items that the+
should /e con"scated /+ uniformed soldiers.
(an+ people were around and the more the
con"scation was made in a scandalous
manner0 ever+ clothes, &5shirts, pants and
dresses even those not wrapped dropped to
the )round. I was terri/l+ shamed in the
presence of mar%et )oers that mornin). 2/
Needles to state, the wantonness of the
wron)ful sei=ure usti"es the award of
e2emplar+ dama)es. 21 It will also serve as a
stern reminder to all and sundr+ that the
constitutional protection a)ainst unreasona/le
search and sei=ure is a virile realit+ and not a
mere /urst of rhetoric. &he all encompassin)
protection e2tends a)ainst intrusions directl+
done /oth /+ )overnment and indirectl+ /+
private entities.
IN GI: :9:'F, the appealed decision is
AFFI9(:! I& ('!IFICA&I'N. e impose a
8IT P:9C:N& >6R@ interest from $anuar+ ,
1E< on the &' &'D8AN! P:8'8
>P3,.@ for the unreturned twent+5si2 >36@
pieces of )irl scouts items and a &:#G:P:9C:N& >13R@ interest, in lieu of 8IT P:9C:N&
>6R@, on the said amount upon "nalit+ of this
!ecision until the pa+ment thereof. 22 Costs
a)ainst petitioners.
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 16/49
G.R. No. L-4/79 A!0#" 17, 199
E(TEAN '. MANEL, petitioner,
vs.
TE )N. ERNANI 'R3 *A) as Judg% o+ t% 'ou0t o+ F#0st Instan8% o+ R#=a", 0.III, <.'., ANT)NI) A. ARANDA, ED(ELLAA6EN and R)LAND)
GATMAITAN, respondents.
'R3, J.:
'ne wonders wh+ the respondent ud)e did not
immediatel+ )rant the petitioners motion to
quash the information on the o/vious and valid
)round that the facts char)ed did not
constitute an o*ense. &his decisive act could
have avoided the needless molestation of onemore citi=en and cleared the clo))ed doc%ets
of this Court of still another of the prosecutions
/i) and small so rampant durin) those da+s of
martial law. (ore importantl+, it would have
a;rmed once a)ain the freedom of e2pression
)uaranteed in the ill of 9i)hts to which ever+
one was entitled even under the 1<?
Constitution.
&his case )oes /ac% to April 31, 1<6, when a
raid was conducted /+ the a)ents of the now
defunct Anti58mu))lin) Action Center on two
rooms in the &o%+o otel in inondo, (anila,
pursuant to a warrant of sei=ure and detention
issued /+ the Actin) Collector of Customs of
(anila on April 3, 1<6. 1 &he raid resulted in
the sei=ure of several articles alle)edl+
smu))led into the countr+ /+ their owners,
three of whom were tourists from on)%on).
&hese articles su/sequentl+ /ecame the
su/ect of sei=ure proceedin)s in the ureau of
Customs /ut most of them were ordered
released upon proof that the customs dutiesand other char)es thereon had /een dul+ paid
as evidenced /+ the correspondin) o;cial
receipts. 'nl+ a few items of no commercial
value were ordered con"scated. 2
hile the sei=ure proceedin)s were pendin),
the petitioner, as counsel for the owners of the
sei=ed articles, sent a letter dated April
1,1<6, to the Chairman of the A8AC in which
he complained a/out the conduct of the raidand demanded that the persons responsi/le
therefore /e investi)ated. &he letter follows in
fullB
:8&:AN C. (AND:#
Attorne+ at #aw
64? Carvaal 8treet
inondo, (anila
&he Chairman
A8AC, Camp A)uinaldoQue=on Cit+
8irB
&his is in /ehalf of m+ clients, (rs. N) oo a+
and her son, (r. #ee Oee (in), who sou)ht m+
help in reportin) to +our )oodself their I
complaint a/out certain acts committed /+
A8AC men which, from all appearances,
constitute criminal o*enses. I am referrin) to
the raid the+ conducted on April 31, 1<6 at
a/out 4B? in the afternoon at &o%+o otel,
'n)pin 8treet, inondo, (anila, pursuant to a
arrant of 8ei=ure and !etention >sei=ure
Identi"cation No. 1433@ issued /+ the Actin)
Collector of Customs on April 3, 1<6. &he
raidin) team, a/out 1 in num/er and headed
/+ one Amado enrol, too% advanta)e of the
fact that (rs. N) oo a+ was alone in her
hotel room. &he A8AC a)ents, despite (rs. N)s
protest and claim of innocence, forced their
wa+ into the room and ransac%ed the place for
alle)ed unta2ed )oods. Not onl+ did the+ ta%eever+thin) the+ could "nd in the room, /ut also
forci/l+ too% from her person the wrist watch
and ade /racelet >)old plated she was wearin)
at the time. &he+ also forced open her hand/a)
and divested her of her wallet containin) <
on)%on) dollars, as well as her nec%lace and
her sons wrist watch which she had placed in
said hand/a). (rs. N) was also su/ected to
the indi)nities of /ein) searched /+ a male
person. After empt+in) the room of itscontents, the raidin) team presented to her a
car/on cop+ of a list purportin) to show the
)oods sei=ed. &he list, however, appears not
onl+ ille)i/le /ut does not reect all the )oods
that were ta%en awa+ /+ the A8AC a)ents.
hat is more, said men, li%ewise ta%in)
advanta)e of the a/sence of (rs. N)s son,
owner of some of the articles, falsi"ed the
si)nature of the latter /+ writin) his name on
the space desi)nated as owner, ma%in) it
appear that he >#ee Oee (in)@ had
ac%nowled)ed that the list covers all the itemssei=ed.
&he documents and other papers presented to
me /+ m+ clients reveal that the articles sei=ed
were declared at the (anila International
Airport upon arrival, and were properl+
appraised. &he correspondin) customs char)es
were li%ewise paid. It is evident, therefore, that
m+ clients were victims of foul pla+
masterminded /+ no less than law enforcers
who pre+ on tourists, particularl+ Chinese, foro/vious reasons.
I e2amined the records in the ureau of
Customs and found out that it was on the /asis
of an a;davit e2ecuted /+ A8AC A)ent
9olando Hatmaitan and the letter5request sent
/+ the Gice5Chairman of A8AC ri). Hen.
9amon M. A)uirre, to the Collector of Customs
that prompted the latter to issue the warrant in
question. In this connection, I must state, with
all fran%ness, that there was undue haste in
the request for the issuance of the warrant,
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 17/49
/ecause it is discerni/le from a mere readin) of
the a;davit that its contents are mere pro5
forma and hearsa+ statements of the
a/ovenamed A8AC a)ent. It could not have, as
it now appears, usti"ed the drastic action
sou)ht to /e accomplished.
Needless to state, the incident complained of
not onl+ has caused considera/le dama)e tom+ clients /ut to our countr+ as well. It is for
this reason that we demand for an immediate
and full dress investi)ation of the A8AC o;cers
and men who too% part in or caused the
issuance of the warrant, as well as those who
participated in the raid, with the view of
pur)in) the )overnment of undesira/les0 and
that pendin) such investi)ation the said
o;cers and men /e suspended from further
performin) their duties.
Ger+ trul+ +ours,
>8H!.@ :8&:AN C. (AND:#
&he Chairman of the A8AC ordered the
investi)ation as demanded, /ut the a)ents
char)ed were all e2onerated in a decision
dated Au)ust 3-, 1<6. 4 Not satis"ed with
what he later descri/ed as a home town
decision, the petitioner, on /ehalf of his
clients, "led a complaint for ro//er+ a)ainst
the same a)ents with the ';ce of the Cit+Fiscal of (anila. &his was later withdrawn,
however, on advice of the inquest "scal who
said that the case mi)ht come under the
urisdiction of the militar+ tri/unal. 5 &he
petitioner sa+s he then went to Camp
A)uinaldo /ut was discoura)ed from "lin) the
complaint there when lie was told that it would
ta%e a/out a +ear to complete the preliminar+
investi)ation alone. &he owners of the sei=ed
articles then instituted a civil complaint for
dama)es which the petitioner "led for them in
the Court of First Instance of (anila on $une
<,1<6. 7
&hree da+s later, there appeared in the $une
1, 1<6 issue of the ulletin &oda+ the
followin) reportB
&'D9I8&8 8D: AH:N&8, 'FFICIA#
Four Chinese, three of whom were tourists from
on)%on), have "led a case for dama)es
a)ainst a customs o;cial and 11 a)ents of the
)overnments anti5smu))lin) action center
A8AC in connection with a raid conducted in
their hotel rooms, more than a month a)o.
&he case was doc%eted in (anilas court of "rst
instance >CFI@ as Civil Case No. 1364.
&he complaints also alle)ed the+ lost assortedmaterials amountin) to P46,?.4.
Named respondents in the case were actin)
customs collector 9amon M. A)uirre, 9olando
Hatmaitan, Antonio aranda, Amado (. &irol,
Francisco C. 8antos, :dsel #a/a+en, $ose
9o/les, Nestor :use/io, Freddie 'cnila, 9enato
Quiro=, Pedro Cunanan, $r., and :nrique Pere=,
all of A8AC
&he actin) customs collector was impleaded inthe case in his o;cial capacit+ for havin)
issued the warrant that led to the criminal
o*enses complained of.
Aquirre, A8AC vice5chairman, was named as
defendant for solicitin) the issuance of a
warrant of sei=ure and detention reportedl+ on
the /asis of char)es contained in an a;davit
e2ecuted /+ Hatmaitan, another A8AC a)ent.
:ste/an (anuel "led the case in /ehalf of the
plainti*s composed of (anila resident N) &ee,
and on) Oon) visitors N) oo a+, Chen) Pi%
Sin) and #ee Oee (in) who came to the
Philippines to visit their relatives and friends.
&he a)ents alle)edl+ su/ected N) oo a+ to
indi)nities and too% her nec%lace, /racelet and
wrist watch. &he+ alle)edl+ sei=ed man+
articles valued at P3<, which have
remained unaccounted for in the list su/mitted/+ the defendants as the inventor+ of the items
con"scated.
'n the /asis of these antecedent facts, an
information for li/el was "led a)ainst the
petitioner, #ee Oee (in) and N) oo a+ in the
Court of First Instance of 9i=al. 9 A readin) of
the information does not show wh+ the two
Chinese were included in the char)e0 all it said
was that the+ were the clients of the petitioner.
As for the petitioner himself, it was alle)ed that
he had committed the crime of li/el /+ writin)
the letter of April 3, 1<6 >which was quoted
in full@ and /+ causin) the pu/lication of the
news item in the ulletin &oda+.
&he su/ect of this petition is the order of the
respondent ud)e dated (arch 3?,
1<<, 1/ den+in) the motion to quash "led /+
the petitioner, who had claimed that his letter
to the A8AC Chairman was not actiona/le
/ecause it was a privile)ed communication0
that the news report in the ulletin &oda+ wasnot /ased on the letter5complaint0 and that in
an+ case it was a fair and true report of a
udicial proceedin) and therefore also
privile)ed. 11 is motion for reconsideration
havin) /een also denied in the order dated
April 3<,1<<,12 he now see%s relief from this
Court a)ainst what he claims as the )rave
a/use of discretion committed /+ the
respondent ud)e in sustainin) the information.
It is perhaps indicative of the wea%ness of therespondents position that when as%ed to
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 18/49
comment on the petitioners motion to quash,
the cit+ "scal never did so durin) a period of
more than ninet+ da+s. 1 It was left to a
private prosecutor to enter his own appearance
thereafter, presuma/l+ /ecause the "scal did
not seem to /e ver+ enthusiastic a/out the
case, and to "le the comment for the private
respondents himself 14 #ater, when the
petitioner came to this Court and we required acomment from the 8olicitor Heneral, this
o;cial complied onl+ after as%in) for >and
)ettin)@ twent+5si2 e2tensions for a total of
nine months and seven da+s, and at that the
comment was onl+ a half5hearted defense of
the challen)ed orders. 15 !espite the
petitioners e*ective re/uttal in his repl+, the
8olicitor Heneral did not as% for leave to "le a
reoinder as if he had lost all taste for com/at
notwithstandin) the man+ points raised /+ the
petitioner that had to /e refuted.
Perhaps it was ust as well. #i%e a )ood )eneral,
the 8olicitor Heneral pro/a/l+ understood that
the /attle was lost.
Indeed it was. In fact, it should never have
commenced.
From the purel+ procedural perspective, there
is much to fault a/out the information. &he two
Chinese clients who were impleaded with the
petitioner were char)ed witha/solutel+ nothing, promptin) the respondent
ud)e to peremptoril+ dismiss the information
as to them. 1 orse, the information imputed
to the remainin) accused two di*erent
o*enses, to wit, writin) the alle)edl+ li/elous
letter and causin) the pu/lication of the
alle)edl+ li/elous news report. &his was not
allowed under 9ule 11, 8ection 13, of the
9ules of Court, providin) that a complaint or
information must char)e /ut one o*ense,
e2cept onl+ in those cases in which e2istin)
laws prescri/e a sin)le punishment for various
o*enses. 17 If li/elous the letter and the news
report constituted separate o*enses that
should have /een char)ed in separate
informations. >owever, not havin) /een raised
in the motion to quash, that )round was
deemed waived under 9ule 1-, 8ection E, of
the 9ules of Court.@ 1
From the viewpoint of su/stantive law, thechar)e is even more defective, if not ridiculous.
An+ one with an elementar+ I %nowled)e of
constitutional law and criminal law would have
%nown that neither the letter nor the news
account was li/elous.
&he applica/le provision in the 9evised Penal
Code reads as followsB
Article ?-4. Requirement for pu-licity . L :ver+
defamator+ imputation is presumed to /emalicious, even if it /e true, if no )ood
intention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is
shown, e2cept in the followin) casesB
1. A private communication made /+ an+
person to another in the performance of an+
le)al, moral or social dut+0 and
3. A fair and true report, made in )ood faith,
without comments or remar%s, of an+ udicial,
le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s which
are not of con"dential nature, or of an+
statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedin)s, or of an+ other act performed /+
pu/lic o;cers in the e2ercise of their functions.
&he letter comes under Item 1 as it was
addressed /+ the petitioner to the A8AC
Chairman to complain a)ainst the conduct of
his men when the+ raided the Chinese tourists
rooms in the &o%+o otel. It was sent /+ the
petitioner mainl+ in his capacit+ as a law+er in
the dischar)e of his le)al dut+ to protect his
clients. hile his principal purpose was to
vindicate his clients interests a)ainst the
a/uses committed /+ the A8AC a)ents, he
could also invo%e his civic dut+ as a private
individual to e2pose anomalies in the pu/lic
service. &he complaint was addressed to the
o;cial who had authorit+ over them and could
impose the proper disciplinar+ sanctions.
8i)ni"cantl+, as an inde2 of )ood faith, theletter was sent privatel+ directl+ to the
addressee, without an+ fanfare or pu/licit+.
As for the news report, it is di;cult to /elieve
that the petitioner, an ordinar+ citi=en without
an+ %nown ties to the newspapers, could have
/+ himself caused the pu/lication of such an
e2plosive item. &here is no prima facieshowin)
that, /+ some %ind of inuence he had over the
periodical, he succeeded in havin) it pu/lished
to defame the A8AC a)ents. It does not appear
either that the report was paid for li%e an
advertisement. &his loo%s instead to /e the
result of the resourcefulness of the newspaper
in discoverin) matters of pu/lic interest for
dutiful disclosure to its readers. It should /e
presumed that the report was included in the
issue as part of the newspapers covera)e of
important current events as selected /+ its
editorial sta*.
At an+ rate, the news item comes under Item 3
of the a/ovequoted article as it is a true andfair report of a udicial proceedin), made in
)ood faith and without comments or remar%s.
&his is also privile)ed. (oreover, it is not
correct to sa+, as the 8olicitor Heneral does,
that Article ?-4 is not applica/le /ecause the
complaint reported as "led would not /+ itself
alone constitute a udicial proceedin) even
/efore the issues are oined and trial is /e)un.
&he doctrine he invo%es is no lon)er
controllin). &he case of Choa &e% ee v.
Philippine Pu/lishin) Co., 19 which he dies, has
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 19/49
/een superseded /+ Cuenco v.
Cuenco, 2/ where the Court cate)oricall+ heldB
e are "rml+ convinced that the correct rule
on the matter should /e that a fair and true
report of a complaint "led in court without
remar%s nor comments even -efore an
answer is "led or a decision promul)ated
should /e covered /+ the privile)e. >:mphasisprovided@
It ma+ also /e ar)ued that the complaint,
standin) /+ itself, is a pu/lic record and ma+
/e pu/lished as such under 9ule 1?-, 8ection 3
of the 9ules of Court unless the court directs
otherwise in the interest of moralit+ or
decenc+.
It is true that the matters mentioned in Article
?-4 as e2ceptions to the )eneral rule are nota/solutel+ privile)ed and are still actiona/le.
owever, since what is presumed is not malice
/ut in fact lac% of malice, it is for the
prosecution to overcome that presumption /+
proof that the accused was actuall+ motivated
/+ malice. A/sent such proof, the char)e must
fail.
e are not unmindful of the contention that
the information should not /e dismissed
outri)ht /ecause the prosecution must "rst /e
)iven a chance to introduce evidence toovercome the presumption. &his is indeed the
normal procedure. owever, where it appears
from the alle)ations in the information itself
that the accused acted in )ood faith and for
usti"a/le ends in ma%in) the alle)edl+ li/elous
imputations, and in pertinent pleadin)s, there
is no need to prolon) the proceedin)s to the i
preudice of the defendant. &he Court can and
should dismiss the char)e without further ado,
as we held in People v. AndresB 21
&he prosecution claims that the trial court
erred in dismissin) the case on a mere motion
to quash, contendin) that the trial ud)es
conclusion on the face of the information that
defendant5 appellee was prompted onl+ /+
)ood motives assumes a fact to /e proved, and
that the alle)ed privile)ed nature of defendant5
appellees pu/lication is a matter of defense
and is not a proper )round for dismissal of thecomplaint for li/el >#u Chu 8in), et al. vs. #u
&ion) Hui <6 Phil. 66@.
hen in the information itself it appears that
the communication alle)ed to /e li/elous is
contained in an appropriate pleadin) in a court
proceedin), the privilege -ecomes at once
apparent and defendant need not wait until the
trial and produce evidence -efore he can raise
the question of privilege. And if, added to this,
the questioned imputations appear to /e reall+
pertinent and relevant to defendants plea for
reconsideration /ased on complainants
supposed partialit+ and a/use of power from
which defendant has a ri)ht to see% relief in
vindication of his clients interest as a liti)ant in
complainants court, it would -ecome evident
that the facts thus alleged in the information
would not constitute an o5ense of li-el.
As has alread+ /een said /+ this CourtB As to
the de)ree of relevanc+ or pertinenc+
necessar+ to ma%e alle)ed defamator+ matterprivile)ed, the courts are inclined to /e li/eral.
&he matter to which the privile)e does not
e2tend must /e so palpa/l+ wantin) in relation
to the su/ect matter of the controvers+ that
no reasona/le man can dou/t its irrelevanc+
and impropriet+. avin) this in mind, it can not
-e said that the trial court committed a
reversi-le error in this case of 8nding that the
allegations in the information itself present a
case of an a-solutely privileged
communication 1ustifying the dismissal of the
case.
&he two e2ceptions provided for under Article
?-4 are /ased on the wider )uarantee of
freedom of e2pression as an institution of all
repu/lican societies. &his in turn is predicated
on the proposition that the ordinar+ citi=en has
a ri)ht and a dut+ to involve himself in matters
that a*ect the pu/lic welfare and, for this
purpose, to inform himself of such matters.
&he vitalit+ of repu/licanism derives from an
alert citi=enr+ that is alwa+s read+ to
participate in the discussion and resolution of
pu/lic issues. &hese issues include the conduct
of )overnment functionaries who are
accounta/le to the people in the performance
of their assi)ned powers, which after all come
from the people themselves. :ver citi=en has a
ri)ht to e2pect from all pu/lic servants utmost
"delit+ to the trust reposed in them and the
ma2imum of e;cienc+ and inte)rit+ in the
dischar)e of their functions. :ver+ citi=en has a
ri)ht to complain and critici=e if this hope is
/etra+ed.
It is no less important to o/serve that this
vi)ilance is not onl+ a ri)ht /ut a responsi/ilit+
of the hi)hest order that should not /e shir%ed
for fear of o;cial reprisal or /ecause of mere
civic lethar)+. henever the citi=en discovers
o;cial anomal+, it is his dut+ to e2pose and
denounce it, that the culprits ma+ /e punished
and the pu/lic service cleansed even as theri)hts violated are vindicated or redressed. It
can never /e overstressed that indi*erence to
ineptness will /reed more ineptness and that
toleration of corruption will /reed more
corruption. &he sins of the pu/lic service are
imputa/le not onl+ to those who actuall+
commit them /ut also to those who /+ their
silence or inaction permit and encoura)e their
commission.
&he responsi/ilit+ to review the conduct of the
)overnment functionaries is especiall+
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 20/49
addressed to the law+er /ecause his trainin)
ena/les him, /etter than most citi=ens, to
determine if the law has /een violated or
irre)ularities have /een committed, and to ta%e
the needed steps to remed+ the wron) and
punish the )uilt+.
&he respondents contend that the letter was
written /+ the petitioner to inuence thesei=ure proceedin)s which were then pendin).
:ven assumin) that to /e true, such purpose
did not necessaril+ ma%e the letter malicious,
especiall+ if it is considered that the complaint
a)ainst the A8AC a)ents could not /e raised in
the said proceedin)s. &he A8AC Chairman, not
the Collector of Customs, had urisdiction to
discipline the a)ents.
It should also /e noted, as further evidence of
lac% of malice, that even after the sei=ure
proceedin)s had /een concluded in favor of the
petitioners clients, he pursued their complaint
a)ainst the A8AC a)ents in the "scals o;ce in
(anila and then with the militar+ authorities in
Camp A)uinaldo, endin) with the "lin) of the
civil case for dama)es in the court of "rst
instance of (anila.
It would /e a sad da+ indeed if for denouncin)
venalit+ in )overnment, the citi=en could /e
called to tas% and /e himself punished on the
)round of malicious defamation. If ever+accuser were himself to /e accused for
dischar)in) his dut+ as he sees it, then will the
wron)5doer have /een )ranted in e*ect, and
/+ this Court no less, an undeserved immunit+
for his misdeeds or omissions. &he private
individual would /e /arred from complainin)
a/out pu/lic misconduct. :ver+ criticism he
ma%es would /e tainted with malice and
pronounced as criminal. &he ne2t step ma+
well /e a conspirac+ amon) those in the
)overnment to cover up each others faults and
to insulate themselves from the le)itimate
e*orts of the people to question their conduct.
&he second e2ception is usti"ed under the
ri)ht of ever+ citi=en to /e informed on matters
of pu/lic interest, which, si)ni"cantl+, was "rst
reco)ni=ed in the 1<? Constitution. :ven if it
were not, the ri)ht would still /e em/raced in
the /roader safe)uard of freedom of e2pression, for the simple reason that the ri)ht
to spea% intelli)entl+ on matters that touch
the e2istin) order necessaril+ imports the
availa/ilit+ of adequate o;cial information on
such matters. 8urel+, the e2ercise of such ri)ht
cannot inspire /elief if /ased onl+ on
conectures and rumors and half5truths
/ecause direct access to the facts is not
allowed to the ordinar+ citi=en.
&his ri)ht is now e*ectivel+ eno+ed with the
help of the mass media, which have fortunatel+
resumed their roles as an independent conduit
of information /etween the )overnment and
the people. It is the reco)ni=ed dut+ of the
media to report to the pu/lic what is )oin) on
in the )overnment, includin) the proceedin)s
in an+ of its departments or a)encies, save
onl+ in e2ceptional cases involvin) decenc+ or
con"dentialit+ when disclosure ma+ /e
prohi/ited.&o protect them in the dischar)e of
this mission, the law sa+s that as lon) as the
account is a fair and true report of suchproceedin)s, and made without an+ remar%s or
comment, it is considered privile)ed and
malice is not presumed. Its pu/lication is
encoura)ed rather than suppressed or
punished.
&his is one reason wh+ the Court loo%s with
disapproval on censorship in )eneral as an
unconstitutional a/rid)ment of freedom of
e2pression, Censorship presumes malice at the
outset, It prevents inquir+ into pu/lic a*airs
and curtails their disclosure and discussion,
leavin) the people in the dar% as to what is
happenin) in the pu/lic service. + loc%in) the
pu/lic portals to the citi=en, who can onl+
)uess at the )oin)s on in the for/idden
precints, censorship separates the people from
their )overnment. &his certainl+ should not /e
permitted. A free press stands as one of the
)reat interpreters /etween the )overnment
and the people, declared $ustice 8utherland of the D.8. 8upreme Court. &o allow it to /e
fettered is to fetter ourselves.
It is curious that the ones most o/viousl+
responsi/le for the pu/lication of the alle)edl+
o*ensive news report, namel+, the editorial
sta* and the periodical itself, were not at all
impleaded. &he char)e was leveled a)ainst the
petitioner and, curiouser still, his clients who
had nothin) to do with the editorial policies of
the newspaper. &here is here a manifest e*ort
to persecute and intimidate the petitioner for
his temerit+ in accusin) the A8AC a)ents who
apparentl+ eno+ed special privile)es L and
perhaps also immunities L durin) those
oppressive times. &he non5inclusion of the
periodicals was a transparent h+pocris+, an
ostensi/l+ pious if not at all convincin)
pretense of respect for freedom of e2pression
that was in fact one of the most desecrated
li/erties durin) the past despotism.
e are convinced that the information a)ainstthe petitioner should never have /een "led at
all and that the respondent ud)e committed
)rave a/use of discretion in den+in) the
motion to quash the information on the )round
that the alle)ation petitions therein did not
constitute an o*ense. &he petitioner is entitled
to the relief he see%s from those who in the
)uise of law and throu)h the instrumentalit+ of
the trial court would impose upon him this
warrant t+rann+.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 21/49
ACC'9!INH#S, the petition is H9AN&:!. &he
orders of the respondent ud)e dated (arch
3?, 1<<, and April 3<, 1<<, are 8:& A8I!:
and Criminal Case No. Q5<4-, in his court, is
!I8(I88:!. Costs a)ainst the respondents.
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 22/49
G.R. No. 124 Janua0> 14, 1999ARTR) )RJAL a.B.a. ART )RJAL andMAIM) ()LIEN, !%t#t#on%0s,&s.')RT )F A**EAL( and FRAN'I(')EN'E(LA), 0%s!ond%nts. ELL)(ILL), J.:
P:9P:&DA##S AH9I!!:N as the pu/lic is
a/out losin) one of the most /asic +et oft hotl+contested freedoms of man, the issue of the
ri)ht of free e2pression /e stirs and presents
itself time and a)ain, in c+clic occurrence, to
invei)le, na+, challen)e the courts to re5surve+
its ever shiftin) terrain, e2plore and furrow its
heretofore uncharted moors and valle+s and
"nall+ rede"ne the metes and /ounds of its
controversial domain. &his, prominentl+, is one
such case.
Perhaps, never in urisprudential histor+ hasan+ freedom of man under)one radical
doctrinal metamorphoses than his ri)ht to
freel+ and openl+ e2press his views.
lac%stones ponti"cal comment that where
/lasphemous, immoral, treasona/le,
schismatical, seditious, or scandalous li/els are
punished /+ :n)lish law ... the li/ert+ of the
press, properl+ understood, is /+ no means
infrin)ed or violated, found %indred e2pression
in the landmar% opinion of :n)lands 8tar
Cham/er in the )i-elis !amosis case in
16?. 1 &hat case esta/lished two maorpropositions in the prosecution of defamator+
remar%sB "rst, that li/el a)ainst a pu/lic person
is a )reater o*ense than one directed a)ainst
an ordinar+ man, and second, that it is
immaterial that the li/el /e true.
Dntil repu/licanism cau)ht "re in earl+
America, the view from the top on li/el was no
less dismal. :ven the venera/le $ustice olmes
appeared to waUe as he swa+ed from the
concept of criminal li/el lia/ilit+ under the clearand present dan)er rule, to the other end of
the spectrum in defense of the constitutionall+
protected status of unpopular opinion in free
societ+.
Giewed in modern times and the current
revolution in information and communication
technolo)+, li/el principles formulated at one
time or another have wa2ed and waned
throu)h the +ears in the constant e// and owof udicial review. At the ver+ least, these
principles have lost much of their avor,
drowned and swamped as the+ have /een /+
the ceaseless cacophon+ and din of thou)ht
and discourse emanatin) from ust a/out ever+
source and direction, aided no less /+ an
increasin)l+ powerful and irrepressi/le mass
media. Pu/lic discourse, laments Oni)ht, has
/een devalued /+ its utter commonalit+0 and
we a)ree, for its lo)ical e*ect is to /enum/
thou)ht and sensi/ilit+ on what ma+ /e
considered as criminal ille)itimateencroachments on the ri)ht of persons to eno+
a )ood, honora/le and reputa/le name. &his
ma+ e2plain the impercepti/le demise of
criminal prosecutions for li/el and the trend to
rel+ instead on indemnit+ suits to repair an+
dama)e on ones reputation.
In this petition for review, we are as%ed to
reverse the Court of Appeals in Francisco
enceslao v. Arturo oral and (a2imo
8oliven, CA5H.9. No. 446, holdin) on 3-(arch 16 that petitioners Arturo oral and
(a2imo 8oliven are solidaril+ lia/le for
dama)es for writin) and pu/lishin) certain
articles claimed to /e dero)ator+ and o*ensive
to private respondent Francisco enceslao.
Petitioners Arturo oral and (a2imo 8oliven
are amon) the incorporators of Philippines
&oda+, Inc. >P&I@, now Phil8&A9 !ail+, Inc.,
owner of &he Philippine 8tar, a dail+
newspaper. At the time the complaint was "led,
petitioner oral was its President while 8oliven
was >and still is@ Pu/lisher and Chairman of its
:ditorial oard. Amon) the re)ular writers of
&he Philippine 8tar is oral who runs the
column 9aywal:er .
Private respondent Francisco enceslao, on the
other hand, is a civil en)ineer, /usinessman,
/usiness consultant and ournalist /+
profession. In 1EE he served as a technicaladviser of Con)ressman Fa/ian 8ison, then
Chairman of the ouse of 9epresentatives 8u/5
Committee on Industrial Polic+.
!urin) the con)ressional hearin)s on the
transport crisis sometime in 8eptem/er 1EE
underta%en /+ the ouse 8u/5Committee on
Industrial Polic+, those who attended a)reed to
or)ani=e the First National Conference on #and
&ransportation >FNC#&@ to /e participated in /+
the private sector in the transport industr+ and
)overnment a)encies concerned in order to
"nd wa+s and means to solve the
transportation crisis. (ore importantl+, the
o/ective of the FNC#& was to draft an omni/us
/ill that would em/od+ a lon)5term land
transportation polic+ for presentation to
Con)ress. &he conference which, accordin) to
private respondent, was estimated to cost
around P1,E1-,. would /e funded
throu)h solicitations from various sponsors
such as )overnment a)encies, private
or)ani=ations, transport "rms, and individualdele)ates or participants. 2
'n 3E Fe/ruar+ 1E, at the or)ani=ational
meetin) of the FNC#&, private respondent
Francisco enceslao was elected :2ecutive
!irector. As such, he wrote numerous
solicitation letters to the /usiness communit+
for the support of the conference.
etween (a+ and $ul+ 1E a series of articles
written /+ petitioner oral was pu/lished ondi*erent dates in his column 9aywal:er . &he
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 23/49
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 24/49
even if ph+sicall+ /anned, call still concoct
wa+s of doin) his thin). ithout a tin)e of
remorse, the or)ani=er could "ll up his
letterheads with, names of Ca/inet mem/ers,
con)ressmen, and reputa/le people from the
private sector to shore up his shad+ reputation
and cover up his notoriet+.
+ 9uly ;<=<
A supposed conference on transportation was a
/i) failure. &he attendance was ver+ poor and
the few who participated in, the a*air were
mostl+ leaders of eepne+ drivers )roups.
None of the )overnment o;cials involved in
re)ulatin) pu/lic transportation was there. &he
/i) names in the industr+ also did not
participate. ith such a poor attendance, one
wonders wh+ the conference or)ani=ers went
ahead with the a*air and tried so hard to
convince ?, companies and individuals to
contri/ute to the a*air.
&he conference was doomed from the start. It
was /ound to fail. &he personalities who count
in the "eld of transpiration refused to attend
the a*air or withdrew their support after
"ndin) out the /ac%)round of the or)ani=er of
the conference. ow could a conference on
transportation succeed without the
participation of the /i) names in the industr+
and )overnment polic+5ma%ers
Private respondent reacted to the articles. e
sent a letter to &he Philippine 8tar insistin)
that he was the or)ani=er alluded to in
petitioner orals columns. 4 In a su/sequent
letter to &he Philippine 8tar, private respondent
refuted the matters contained in petitioner
orals columns and openl+ challen)ed him in
this manner L
&o test if oral has the )uts to /ac% up hisholier than thou attitude, I am prepared to
relinquish this position in case it is found that I
have misappropriated even one peso of FNC#&
mone+. 'n the other hand, if I can prove that
oral has used his column as a hammer to
)et clients for his P9 Firm, AA oral Associates,
he should resi)n from the 8&A9 and never
a)ain write a column. Is it a deal 5
&hereafter, private respondent "led acomplaint with the National Press Clu/ >NPC@
a)ainst petitioner oral for unethical conduct.
e accused petitioner oral of usin) his
column as a form of levera)e to o/tain
contracts for his pu/lic relations "rm, AA oral
Associates. In turn, petitioner oral pu/lished
a reoinder to the challen)e of private
respondent not onl+ to protect his name and
honor /ut also to refute the claim that he was
usin) his column for character assassination. 7
Apparentl+ not satis"ed with his complaint with
the NPC, private respondent "led a criminal
case for li/el a)ainst petitioners oral and
8oliven, amon) others. owever, in a
9esolution dated < Au)ust 1, the Assistant
Prosecutor handlin) the case dismissed the
complaint for insu;cienc+ of evidence. &he
dismissal was sustained /+ the !epartment of
$ustice and later /+ the ';ce of the President.
'n ?1 'cto/er 1 private respondent
instituted a)ainst petitioners a civil action fordama)es /ased on li/el su/ect of the instant
case. In their answer, petitioners interposed
compulsor+ counterclaims for actual, moral and
e2emplar+ dama)es, plus attorne+s fees and
costs. After due consideration, the trial court
decided in favor of private respondent
enceslao and ordered petitioners oral and
8oliven to indemnif+ private respondent
P1,,. for actual and compensator+
dama)es, in addition to P3,. for moral
dama)es, P1,. for e2emplar+
dama)es, P3,. for attorne+s fees, and
to pa+ the costs of suit.
&he Court of Appeals a;rmed the decision of
the court a quo /ut reduced the amount of the
monetar+ award to P11,. actual
dama)es, P3,. moral dama)es and
P<-,. attorne+s fees plus costs. In a 35
pa)e !ecision promul)ated 3- (arch 16, theappellate court ruled inter alia that private
respondent was su;cientl+ identi"a/le,
althou)h not named, in the questioned articles0
that private respondent was in fact defamed /+
petitioner oral /+ descri/in) him variousl+ as
a self5proclaimed hero, a conference
or)ani=er associated with shad+ deals who has
a lot of trash tuc%ed inside his closet, thic%
face, and a person with du/ious wa+s0 that
petitioners claim of privile)e communication
was unavailin) since the privile)ed character
of the articles was lost /+ their pu/lication in anewspaper of )eneral circulation0 that
petitioner could have performed his o;cer as a
newspaperman without necessaril+
trans)ressin) the ri)hts of enceslao /+
callin) the attention of the )overnment o;ces
concerned to e2amine the authorit+ /+ which
enceslao acted, warnin) the pu/lic a)ainst
contri/utin) to a conference that, accordin) to
his perception, lac%ed the univocal
indorsement of the responsi/le )overnment
o;cials, or simpl+ informin) the pu/lic of theletters enceslao wrote and the favors he
requested or demanded0 and, that when he
imputed dishonest+, falsehood and
misrepresentation, shamelessness and
intellectual pretentions to enceslao,
petitioner oral crossed the thin /ut clear line
that separated fair comment from actiona/le
defamation.
Private respondent manifested his desire to
appeal that portion of the appellate courts
decision which reduced the amount of
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 25/49
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 26/49
spo%en of in orals columns. &he former even
called up columnist oral to inquire if he
>enceslao@ was the one referred to in the
su/ect articles. 17 is letter to the editor
pu/lished in the 4 $une 1E issue of &he
Philippine 8tar even showed private
respondent enceslaos uncertaint+ L
Althou)h he used a su/terfu)e, I was almostcertain that Art oral referred to the First
National Conference on #and &ransportation
>$une 35?@ and me in the second para)raph
of his (a+ ?1 column . . . 1
Identi"cation is )rossl+ inadequate when even
the alle)ed o*ended part+ is himself unsure
that he was the o/ect of the ver/al attac%. It is
well to note that the revelation of the identit+
of the person alluded to came not from
petitioner oral /ut from private respondent
himself0 when he supplied the information
throu)h his 4 $une 1E letter to the editor.
ad private respondent not revealed that he
was the or)ani=er of the FNC#& referred to in
the oral articles, the pu/lic would have
remained in /lissful i)norance of his identit+. It
is therefore clear that on the element of
identi"a/ilit+ alone the case falls.
&he a/ove disquisitions notwithstandin), and
on the assumption arguendo that private
respondent has /een su;cientl+ identi"ed asthe su/ect of orals disputed comments, we
now proceed to resolve the other issues and
pass upon the pertinent "ndin)s of the courts a
quo.
&he third, fourth, "fth and si2th assi)ned errors
all revolve around the primar+ question of
whether the disputed articles constitute
privile)ed communications as to e2empt the
author from lia/ilit+.
&he trial court ruled that petitioner oral
cannot hide /ehind the proposition that his
articles are privile)ed in character under the
provisions of Art. ?-4 of &he 9evised Penal
Code which state L
Art. ?-4. 9equirement for pu/licit+. L :ver+
defamator+ imputation is presumed to /e
malicious, even if it /e true, if no )oodintention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is
shown, e2cept in the followin) casesB
1@ A private communication made /+ an+
person to another in the performance of an+
le)al, moral or social dut+0 and,
3@ A fair and true report, made in )ood faith,
without an+ comments or remar%s, of an+
udicial or other o;cial proceedin)s which are
not of con"dential nature, or of an+ statement,
report or speech delivered in said proceedin)s,
or of an+ other act performed /+ pu/lic o;cers
in the e2ercise of their functions.
9espondent court e2plained that the writin)s in
question did not fall under an+ of the
e2ceptions descri/ed in the a/ove5quoted
article since these were neither private
communications nor fair and true report . . .
without an+ comments or remar%s. ut this is
incorrect.
A privile)ed communication ma+ /e either
a/solutel+ privile)ed or quali"edl+ privile)ed.
A/solutel+ privile)ed communications are
those which are not actiona/le even if the
author has acted in /ad faith. An e2ample is
found in 8ec. 11, Art.GI, of the 1E<
Constitution which e2empts a mem/er of
Con)ress from lia/ilit+ for an+ speech or
de/ate in the Con)ress or in an+ Committee
thereof. Dpon the other hand, quali"edl+
privile)ed communications containin)defamator+ imputations are not actiona/le
unless found to have /een made without )ood
intention usti"a/le motive. &o this )enre
/elon) private communications and fair and
true report without an+ comments or remar%s.
Indisputa/l+, petitioner orals questioned
writin)s are not within the e2ceptions of Art.
?-4 of &he 9evised Penal Code for, as correctl+
o/served /+ the appellate court, the+ areneither private communications nor fair and
true report without an+ comments or remar%s.
owever this does not necessaril+ mean that
the+ are not privile)ed. &o /e sure, the
enumeration under Art. ?-4 is not an e2clusive
list of quali"edl+ privile)ed communications
since fair commentaries on matters of pu/lic
interest are li%ewise privile)ed. &he rule on
privile)ed communications had its )enesis not
in the nations penal code /ut in the ill of
9i)hts of the Constitution )uaranteein)
freedom of speech and of the press. 19 As earl+as 11E, in United States v. Ca>ete, 2/ this
Court ruled that pu/lications which are
privile)ed for reasons of pu/lic polic+ are
protected /+ the constitutional )uarant+ of
freedom of speech. &his constitutional ri)ht
cannot /e a/olished /+ the mere failure of the
le)islature to )ive it e2press reco)nition in the
statute punishin) li/els.
&he concept of privile)ed communications is
implicit in the freedom of the press. As heldin Eli/alde v. %utierre/ 21 and reiterated
in Santos v. Court of $ppeals 22 L
&o /e more speci"c, no culpa/ilit+ could /e
imputed to petitioners for the alle)ed o*endin)
pu/lication without doin) violence to the
concept of privile)ed communications implicit
in the freedom of the press. As was so well put
/+ $ustice (alcolm in ustosB Pu/lic polic+, the
welfare of societ+, and the orderl+
administration of )overnment have demanded
protection of pu/lic opinion. &he inevita/le and
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 27/49
incontesta/le result has /een the development
and adoption of the doctrine of privile)e.
&he doctrine formulated in these two >3@ cases
resonates the rule that privile)ed
communications must, sui generis, /e
protective of pu/lic opinion. &his closel+
adheres to the democratic theor+ of free
speech as essential to collective self5determination and eschews the strictl+
li/ertarian view that it is protective solel+ of
self5e2pression which, in the words of Sale
8terlin) Professor 'wen Fiss, 2 ma%es its
appeal to the individualistic ethos that so
dominates our popular and political culture. It
is therefore clear that the restrictive
interpretation vested /+ the Court of Appeals
on the penal provision e2emptin) from lia/ilit+
onl+ private communications and fair and true
report without comments or remar%s defeats,
rather than promotes, the o/ective of the ruleon privile)ed communications, sadl+ contrivin)
as it does, to suppress the health+ eUoresence
of pu/lic de/ate and opinion as shinin)
linchpins of trul+ democratic societies.
&o reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of
pu/lic interest are privile)ed and constitute a
valid defense in an action for li/el or slander.
&he doctrine of fair comment means that while
in )eneral ever+ discredita/le imputation
pu/licl+ made is deemed false, /ecause ever+man is presumed innocent until his )uilt is
udiciall+ proved, and ever+ false imputation is
deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discredita/le imputation is directed a)ainst a
pu/lic person in his pu/lic capacit+, it is not
necessaril+ actiona/le. In order that such
discredita/le imputation to a pu/lic o;cial ma+
/e actiona/le, it must either /e a false
alle)ation of fact or a comment /ased on a
false supposition. If the comment is an
e2pression of opinion, /ased on esta/lished
facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion
happens to /e mista%en, as lon) as it mi)ht
reasona/l+ /e inferred from the facts. 21
&here is no den+in) that the questioned
articles dealt with matters of pu/lic interest. In
his testimon+, private respondent spelled out
the o/ectives of the conference thus L
. . . &he principal conference o/ective is tocome up with a draft of an 'mni/us ill that
will em/od+ a lon) term land transportation
polic+ for presentation to Con)ress in its ne2t
re)ular session in $ul+. 8ince last $anuar+, the
National Conference on #and &ransportation
>NC#&@, the conference secretariat, has /een
enlistin) support from all sectors to ensure the
success of the proect. 25
Private respondent li%ewise testi"ed that the
FNC#& was raisin) funds throu)h solicitation
from the pu/lic V
QB Now, in this "rst letter, +ou have attached a
/ud)et and it sa+s here that in this seminar of
the First National Conference on #and
&ransportation, +ou will need around 'ne
million ei)ht hundred "fteen thousand pesos, is
that ri)ht
AB &hat was the /ud)et estimate, sir.
QB ow do +ou intend as e2ecutive o;cer, to
raise this fund of +our seminar
AB ell, from sponsors such as )overnment
a)encies and private sectors or or)ani=ations
as well as individual transport "rms and from
individual dele)ates7participants. 2
&he declared o/ective of the conference, the
composition of its mem/ers and participants,
and the manner /+ which it was intended to /e
funded no dou/t lend to its activities as /ein)
)enuinel+ im/ued with pu/lic interest. An
or)ani=ation such as the FNC#& aimin) to
reinvent and reshape the transportation laws of
the countr+ and see%in) to source its funds for
the proect from the pu/lic at lar)e cannot
dissociate itself from the pu/lic character of its
mission. As such, it cannot /ut invite close
scrutin+ /+ the media o/li)ed to inform the
pu/lic of the le)itimac+ of the purpose of the
activit+ and of the quali"cations and inte)rit+
of the personalities /ehind it.
&his in e*ect is the stron) messa)e in New
?or: #imes v. Sullivan 27 which the appellate
court failed to consider or, for that matter, to
heed. It insisted that private respondent was
not, properl+ spea%in), a pu/lic o;cial nor a
pu/lic ")ure, which is wh+ the defamator+
imputations a)ainst him had nothin) to do with
his tas% of or)ani=in) the FNC#&.
New ?or: #imes v. Sullivan was decided /+ the
D. 8. 8upreme Court in the 16s at the hei)ht
of the /lood+ riotin) in the American 8outh
over racial se)re)ation. &he then Cit+
Commissioner #. . 8ullivan of (ont)omer+,
Ala/ama, sued New Sor% &imes for pu/lishin) a
paid political advertisement espousin) racial
equalit+ and descri/in) police atrocities
committed a)ainst students inside a colle)e
campus. As commissioner havin) char)e over
police actions 8ullivan felt that he wassu;cientl+ identi"ed in the ad as the
perpetrator of the outra)e0 consequentl+, he
sued New Sor% &imes on the /asis of what he
/elieved were li/elous utterances a)ainst him.
&he D. 8. 8upreme Court spea%in) throu)h (r.
$ustice illiam $. rennan $r. ruled a)ainst
8ullivan holdin) that honest criticisms on the
conduct of pu/lic o;cials and pu/lic ")ures are
insulated from li/el ud)ments. &he )uarantees
of freedom of speech and press prohi/it a
pu/lic o;cial or pu/lic ")ure from recoverin)
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 28/49
dama)es for a defamator+ falsehood relatin)
to his o;cial conduct unless he proves that the
statement was made with actual malice, i.e.,
with %nowled)e that it was false or with
rec%less disre)ard of whether it was false or
not.
&he raison d4 @tre for the New Sor% &imes
doctrine was that to require critics of o;cialconduct to )uarantee the truth of all their
factual assertions on pain of li/el ud)ments
would lead to self5censorship, since would /e
critics would /e deterred from, voicin) out their
criticisms even if such were /elieved to /e
true, or were in fact true, /ecause of dou/t
whether it could /e proved or /ecause of fear
of the e2pense of havin) to prove it. 2
In the present case, we deem private
respondent a pu/lic ")ure within the purview
of the New Sor% &imes rulin). At an+ rate, we
have also de"ned pu/lic ")ure in $yers
*roduction *ty. )td. v. Capulong 29 as L
. . . . a person who, /+ his accomplishments,
fame, mode of livin), or /+ adoptin) a
profession or callin) which )ives the pu/lic a
le)itimate interest in his doin)s, his a*airs and
his character, has /ecome a pu/lic
persona)e. e is, in other words, a cele/rit+.
'/viousl+ to /e included in this cate)or+ are
those who have achieved some de)ree of reputation /+ appearin) /efore the pu/lic, as in
the case of an actor, a professional /ase/all
pla+er, a pu)ilist, or an+ other entertainer. &he
list is, however, /roader than this. It includes
pu/lic o;cers, famous inventors and e2plorers,
war heroes and even ordinar+ soldiers, infant
prodi)+, and no less a persona)e than the
Hreat :2alted 9uler of the lod)e. It includes, in
short, an+one who has arrived at a position
where the pu/lic attention is focused upon him
as a person.
&he FNC#& was air underta%in) infused with
pu/lic interest. It was promoted as a oint
proect of the )overnment and the private
sector, and or)ani=ed /+ top )overnment
o;cials and prominent /usinessmen. For this
reason, it attracted media milea)e and drew
pu/lic attention not onl+ to the conference
itself /ut to the personalities /ehind as well. As
its :2ecutive !irector and spo%esman, private
respondent consequentl+ assumed the status
of a pu/lic ")ure.
ut even assumin) eAgratia argumenti that
private respondent, despite the position he
occupied in the FNC#&, would not qualif+ as a
pu/lic ")ure, it does not necessaril+ follow that
he could not validl+ /e the su/ect of a pu/lic
comment even if he was not a pu/lic o;cial or
at least a pu/lic ")ure, for he could /e, as lon)
as he was involved in a pu/lic issue. If a matter
is a su/ect of pu/lic or )eneral interest, itcannot suddenl+ /ecame less so merel+
/ecause a private individual is involved or
/ecause in some sense the individual did not
voluntaril+ choose to /ecome involved. &he
pu/lics primar+ interest is in the event0 the
pu/lic focus is on the conduct of the participant
and the content, e*ect and si)ni"cance of the
conduct, not the participants prior anon+mit+
or notoriet+. /
&here is no den+in) that the questionedarticles dealt with matters of pu/lic interest. A
readin) of the imputations of petitioner oral
a)ainst respondent enceslao shows that all
these necessaril+ /ore upon the latters o;cial
conduct and his moral and mental "tness as
:2ecutive !irector of the FNC#&. &he nature and
functions of his position which included
solicitation of funds, dissemination of
information a/out the FNC#& in order to
)enerate interest in the conference, and the
mana)ement and coordination of the various
activities of the conference demanded from
him utmost honest+, inte)rit+ and competence.
&hese are matters a/out which the pu/lic has
the ri)ht to /e informed, ta%in) into account
the ver+ pu/lic character of the conference
itself.
Concededl+, petitioner oral ma+ have )one
over/oard in the lan)ua)e emplo+ed
descri/in) the or)ani=er of the conference.'ne is tempted to wonder if it was /+ some
mischievous )am/it that he would also dare
test the limits of the wild /lue +onder of free
speech in this urisdiction. ut no matter how
intemperate or deprecator+ the utterances
appear to /e, the privile)e is not to /e
defeated nor rendered inutile for, as succinctl+
e2pressed /+ (r. $ustice rennan in New ?or:
#imes v. Sullivan, !Je/ate on pu/lic issues
should /e uninhi/ited, ro/ust and wide open,
and that it ma+ well include vehement, caustic
and sometimes unpleasantl+ sharp attac%s onthe )overnment and pu/lic o;cials. 1
&he Court of Appeals concluded that since
malice is alwa+s presumed in the pu/lication of
defamator+ matters in the a/sence of proof to
the contrar+, the question of privile)e is
immaterial.
e reect this postulate. hile, )enerall+,
malice can /e presumed from defamator+
words, the privile)ed character of acommunication destro+s the presumption of
malice. 2 &he onus of provin) actual malice
then lies on plainti*, private respondent
enceslao herein. e must /rin) home to the
defendant, petitioner oral herein, the
e2istence of malice as the true motive of his
conduct.
(alice connotes ill will or spite and spea%s not
in response to dut+ /ut merel+ to inure the
reputation of the person defamed, and implies
an intention to do ulterior and unusti"a/le
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 29/49
harm. 4 (alice is /ad faith or /ad motive.5 It is
the essence of the crime of li/el.
In the milieu o/tainin), can it /e reasona/l+
inferred that in writin) and pu/lishin) the
articles in question petitioner oral acted with
malice
Primaril+, private respondent failed tosu/stantiate /+ preponderant evidence that
petitioner was animated /+ a desire to
inict un1usti8a-le harm on his reputation, or
that the articles were written and
pu/lished without good motives or 1usti8a-le
ends. 'n the other hand, we "nd petitioner
oral to have acted in )ood faith. (oved /+ a
sense of civic dut+ and prodded /+ his
responsi/ilit+ as a newspaperman, he
proceeded to e2pose and denounce what he
perceived to /e a pu/lic deception. 8urel+, we
cannot /e)rud)e him for that. :ver+ citi=en has
the ri)ht to eno+ a )ood name and reputation,
/ut we do not consider that petitioner oral
has violated that ri)ht in this case nor a/used
his press freedom.
Furthermore, to /e considered malicious, the
li/elous statements must /e shown to have
/een written or pu/lished with the %nowled)e
that the+ are false or in rec%less disre)ard of
whether the+ are false or not. 79ec%less
disre)ard of what is false or not means thatthe defendant entertains serious dou/t as to
the truth of the pu/lication, or that he
possesses a hi)h de)ree of awareness of their
pro/a/le falsit+. 9
&he articles su/ect of the instant case can
hardl+ /e said to have /een written with
%nowled)e that these are false or in rec%less
disre)ard of what is false or not. &his is not to
sa+ however that the ver+ serious alle)ations
of petitioner oral assumed /+ private
respondent to /e directed a)ainst him are true.
ut we nevertheless "nd these at least to have
/een /ased on reasona/le )rounds formed
after the columnist conducted several personal
interviews and after considerin) the varied
documentar+ evidence provided him /+ his
sources. &hus, the followin) are supported /+
documentar+ evidenceB >a@ that private
respondent requested Hloria (acapa)al5
Arro+o, then head of the Harments and &e2tile
:2port oard >H&:@, to e2pedite the
processin) and release of the import approval
and certi"cate of availa/ilit+ of a )arment "rm
in e2chan)e for the monetar+ contri/ution of
$uliano #im, which necessitated a repl+ from
the o;ce of Hloria (acapa)al5Arro+o
e2plainin) the procedure of the H&: in
processin) applications and clarif+in) that all
applicants were treated
equall+0 4/ >/@ that Antonio Periquet was
desi)nated Chairman of the :2ecutive
Committee of the FNC#& notwithstandin) thathe had previousl+ declined the o*er0 41 and, >c@
that despite the fact that then President Aquino
and her 8ecretar+ of &ransportation 9ainerio
9e+es declined the invitation to /e )uest
spea%ers in the conference, their names were
still included in the, printout of the
FNC#&. 42 Added to these are the admissions of
private respondent thatB >a@ he assisted $uliano
#im in his application for a quota allocation
with the H&: in e2chan)e for monetar+
contri/utions to the FNC#&0 4 >/@ he included
the name of then 8ecretar+ of &ransportation
9ainerio 9e+es in the promotional materials of
the conference notwithstandin) the latters
refusal to lend his name to and participate in
the FNC#&0 44 and, >c@ he used di*erent
letterheads and telephone num/ers. 45
:ven assumin) that the contents of the articles
are false, mere error, inaccurac+ or even falsit+
alone does not prove actual malice. :rrors or
misstatements are inevita/le in an+ scheme of
trul+ free e2pression and de/ate. Consistent
with )ood faith and reasona/le care, the press
should not /e held to account, to a point of
suppression, for honest mista%es or
imperfections in the choice of lan)ua)e. &here
must /e some room for misstatement of fact as
well as for misud)ment. 'nl+ /+ )ivin) them
much leewa+ and tolerance can the+
coura)eousl+ and e*ectivel+ function as critical
a)encies in our democrac+. 4 In Bulletin
*u-lishing Corp. v. Noel 47we held V
A newspaper especiall+ one national in reach
and covera)e, should /e free to report on
events and developments in which the pu/lic
has a le)itimate interest with minimum fear of
/ein) hauled to court /+ one )roup or another
on criminal or civil char)es for li/el, so lon) as
the newspaper respects and %eeps within the
standards of moralit+ and civilit+ prevailin)
within the )eneral communit+.
&o avoid the self5censorship that would
necessaril+ accompan+ strict lia/ilit+ for
erroneous statements, rules )overnin) lia/ilit+
for inur+ to reputation are required to allow an
adequate mar)in of error /+ protectin) some
inaccuracies. It is for the same reason that the
New Sor% &imes doctrine requires that lia/ilit+
for defamation of a pu/lic o;cial or pu/lic
")ure ma+ not /e imposed in the a/sence of
proof of actual malice on the part of the
person ma%in) the li/elous statement.
At an+ rate, it ma+ /e salutar+ for private
respondent to ponder upon the advice of (r.
$ustice (alcolm e2pressed in U.S. v.
Bustos, 4 that the interest of societ+ and the
maintenance of )ood )overnment demand a
full discussion of pu/lic a*airs. Complete
li/ert+ to comment on the conduct of pu/lic
men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. &he
sharp incision of its pro/e relieves the
a/scesses of o;cialdom. (en in pu/lic life ma+
su*er under a hostile and unust accusation0
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 30/49
the wound ma+ /e assua)ed /+ the /alm of a
clear conscience. A pu/lic o;cial must not /e
too thin5s%inned with reference to comments
upon his o;cial acts.
&he fore)oin) disposition renders the second
and seventh assi)ned errors moot and
academic, hence, we "nd no necessit+ to pass
upon them.
e must however ta%e this opportunit+ to
li%ewise remind media practitioners of the hi)h
ethical standards attached to and demanded
/+ their no/le profession. &he dan)er of an
un/ridled irrational e2ercise of the ri)ht of free
speech and press, that is, in utter contempt of
the ri)hts of others and in willful disre)ard of
the cum/rous responsi/ilities inherent in it, is
the eventual self5destruction of the ri)ht and
the re)ression of human societ+ into a
verita/le o//esian state of nature where life
is short, nast+ and /rutish. &herefore, to
reco)ni=e that there can /e no a/solute
unrestraint in speech is to trul+ comprehend
the quintessence of freedom in the
mar%etplace of social thou)ht and action,
)enuine freedom /ein) that which is limned /+
the freedom of others. If there is freedom of
the press, ou)ht there not also /e freedom
from the press It is in this sense that self5
re)ulation as distin)uished from self5censorship
/ecomes the ideal mean for, as (r. $usticeFran%furter has warned, Jithout
. . . a livel+ sense of responsi/ilit+, a free press
ma+ readil+ /ecome a powerful instrument of
inustice. 49
#est we /e misconstrued, this is not to diminish
nor constrict that space in which e2pression
freel+ ourishes and operates. For we have
alwa+s stron)l+ maintained, as we do now, that
freedom of e2pression is mans /irthri)ht
5constitutionall+ protected and )uaranteed,
and that it has /ecome the sin)ular role of the
press to act as its defensor "dei in a
democratic societ+ such as ours. ut it is also
worth %eepin) in mind that the press is the
servant, not the master, of the citi=enr+, and
its freedom does not carr+ with it an restricted
huntin) license to pre+ on the ordinar+
citi=en. 5/
'n petitioners counterclaim for dama)es, we"nd the evidence too mea)er to sustain an+
award. Indeed, private respondent cannot /e
said to have instituted the present suit in
a/use of the le)al processes and with hostilit+
to the press0 or that he acted maliciousl+,
wantonl+, oppressivel+, fraudulentl+ and for
the sole purpose of harassin) petitioners,
there/+ entitlin) the latter to dama)es. 'n the
contrar+, private respondent acted within his
ri)hts to protect his honor from what he
perceived to /e malicious imputations a)ainst
him. Proof and motive that the institution of theaction was prompted /+ a sinister desi)n to
ve2 and humiliate a person must /e clearl+ and
preponderantl+ esta/lished to entitle the victim
to dama)es. &he law could not have meant to
impose a penalt+ on the ri)ht to liti)ate, nor
should counsels fees /e awarded ever+ time a
part+ wins a suit. 51
For, concludin) with the wisdom in arren v.
*ulit/er *u-lishing
Co. 52
C
:ver+ man has a ri)ht to
discuss matters of pu/lic
interest. A cler)+man with his
oc%, an admiral with his eet,
a )eneral with his arm+, a
ud)e with his ur+0 we are, all
of us, the su/ect of pu/lic
discussion. &he view of our
court has /een thus statedB It
is onl+ in despotisms that one
must spea%su- rosa, or in
whispers, with /ated /reath,
around the corner, or in the
dar% on a su/ect touchin) the
common welfare. It is the
/ri)htest ewel in the crown of
the law to spea% and maintain
the )olden mean /etween
defamation, on one hand, and
a health+ and ro/ust ri)ht of
free pu/lic discussion, on the
other.
:9:F'9:, the petition is H9AN&:!. &he
!ecision of the Court of Appeals of 3- (arch
16 and its 9esolution of 13 8eptem/er 16
den+in) reconsideration are, 9:G:98:! and
8:& A8I!:, and the complaint for dama)es
a)ainst petitioners is !I8(I88:!. Petitioners
counterclaim for dama)es is li%ewise
!I8(I88:! for lac% of merit. No
costs.;Dwphi;.n@t
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 31/49
G.R. No. 15/ Janua0> 2, 2//
MR( *LI'ATI)N(, IN'., MAR( '.LA')N(A6, M6LA '. AGJA and AG(TIN)G. INEGA(, JR.,petitioners,vs.I(LAMI' DAA ')N'IL )F TE*ILI**INE(, IN'., ADLRAMAN R.T.
LIN3AG, IRAIM F.*. AR'ILLA, ADLRA(ID DE G3MAN, AL-FARED DA (ILAand IRAIM .A. JNI), respondents.
ELL)(ILL), J.
" may utterly detest what you write -ut " shall8ght to the death to ma:e it possi-le for you tocontinue writing it. L
Voltaire
G'#&AI9:8 P'N&IFICA# G:98: /estirs oncea)ain the /asic li/erties to free speech and freepress L li/erties that /elon) as well, if notmore, to those who question, who do notconform, who di*er. For the ultimate )oodwhich we all strive to achieve for ourselves andour posterit+ can /etter /e reached /+ a freee2chan)e of ideas, where the /est test of truthis the power of the thou)ht to )et itself accepted in the competition of the free mar%et
L not ust the ideas we desire, /ut includin)those thou)hts we despise.1
I8#A(IC !AA C'DNCI# 'F &: PI#IPPIN:8,INC., a local federation of more than sevent+><@ (uslim reli)ious or)ani=ations, andindividual (uslims A!D#9A(AN 9.&. #INMAH,I9AI( F.P. A9CI##A, A!D# 9A8I! !:HDM(AN, A#5FA9:! !A 8I#GA and I9AI( .A. $DNI', "led in the 9e)ional &rial Court of (anilaa complaint for dama)es in their own /ehalf and as a class suit in /ehalf of the (uslimmem/ers nationwide a)ainst (G98
PD#ICA&I'N8, INC., (A98 C. #AC'N8AS, (S#AC. AHD$A and AHD8&IN' H. IN:HA8, $9.,
arisin) from an article pu/lished in the 1Au)ust 13 issue of ul)ar, a dail+ ta/loid. &he article readsB
$)$M B$ N"N?&
Na ang mga -a-oy at :ahit anong uri ng hayopsa Mindanao ay hindi :ina:ain ng mga Muslim
*ara sa :anila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong-agay. (indi nila ito :ailangang :ainin :ahit nasila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam satuwing sila ay :a:ain. %inagawa nila itong'iyos at sinasam-a pa nila ito sa tuwing arawng :anilang pangingilin lalunglalo na sa arawna tinatawag nilang 4Ramadan4.
&he complaint alle)ed that the li/elousstatement was insultin) and dama)in) to the(uslims0 that these words alludin) to the pi)
as the Hod of the (uslims was not onl+pu/lished out of sheer i)norance /ut withintent to hurt the feelin)s, cast insult anddispara)e the (uslims and Islam, as a reli)ionin this countr+, in violation of law, pu/lic polic+,)ood morals and human relations0 that onaccount of these li/elous words Bulgar insultednot onl+ the (uslims in the Philippines /ut theentire (uslim world, especiall+ ever+ (uslimindividual in non5(uslim countries.
(G98 PD#ICA&I'N8, INC., and AHD8&IN' H.IN:HA8, $9., in their defense, contended that
the article did not mention respondents as theo/ect of the article and therefore were notentitled to dama)es0 and, that the article wasmerel+ an e2pression of /elief or opinion andwas pu/lished without malice nor intention tocause dama)e, preudice or inur+ to (uslims.3
'n ? $une 1- the trial court dismissed thecomplaint holdin) that the plainti*s failed toesta/lish their cause of action since thepersons alle)edl+ defamed /+ the article werenot speci"call+ identi"ed L
It must /e noted that the persons alle)edl+defamed, the herein plainti*s, were notidenti"ed with speci"cit+. &he su/ect articlewas directed at the (uslims withoutmentionin) or identif+in) the herein plainti*s 22 2. It is thus apparent that the alle)ed li/elousarticle refers to the lar)er collectivit+ of (uslims for which the readers of the li/el could
not readil+ identif+ the personalities of thepersons defamed. ence, it is di;cult for anindividual (uslim mem/er to prove that thedefamator+ remar%s appl+ to him. &heevidence presented in this case failed toconvince this court that, indeed, thedefamator+ remar%s reall+ applied to theherein plainti*s.?
'n 3< Au)ust 1E the Court of Appealsreversed the decision of the trial court. Itopined that it was clear from the disputedarticle that the defamation was directed to all
adherents of the Islamic faith. It stated thatpi)s were sacred and idoli=ed as )od /+mem/ers of the (uslim reli)ion. &his li/elousimputation undenia/l+ applied to the plainti*5appellants who are (uslims sharin) the samereli)ious /eliefs. It added that the suit fordama)es was a class suit and that I8#A(IC!AA C'DNCI# 'F &: PI#IPPIN:8, INC.sreli)ious status as a (uslim um/rellaor)ani=ation )ave it the requisite personalit+ tosue and protect the interests of all (uslims.4
ence, the instant petition for review assailin)
the "ndin)s of the appellate court >a@ on thee2istence of the elements of li/el, >/@ the ri)htof respondents to institute the class suit, and,>c@ the lia/ilit+ of petitioners for moraldama)es, e2emplar+ dama)es, attorne+s feesand costs of suit.
!efamation, which includes li/el and slander,means the o*ense of inurin) a personscharacter, fame or reputation throu)h false andmalicious statements.- It is that which tends toinure reputation or to diminish the esteem,respect, )ood will or con"dence in the plainti*
or to e2cite dero)ator+ feelin)s or opinionsa/out the plainti*.6 It is the pu/lication of
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 32/49
an+thin) which is inurious to the )ood name orreputation of another or tends to /rin) him intodisrepute.< !efamation is an invasion of arelational interest since it involves the opinionwhich others in the communit+ ma+ have, ortend to have, of the plainti*.E
It must /e stressed that words which aremerel+ insultin) are not actiona/le as li/el or
slander per se, and mere words of )enerala/use however oppro/rious, ill5natured, orve2atious, whether written or spo%en, do notconstitute a /asis for an action for defamationin the a/sence of an alle)ation for specialdama)es. &he fact that the lan)ua)e iso*ensive to the plainti* does not ma%e itactiona/le /+ itself.1
!eclarations made a/out a lar)e class of people cannot /e interpreted to advert to anidenti"ed or identi"a/le individual. A/sentcircumstances speci"call+ pointin) or alludin)
to a particular mem/er of a class, no mem/erof such class has a ri)ht of action11 without atall impairin) the equall+ demandin) ri)ht of free speech and e2pression, as well as of thepress, under the Bill of Rights.13 &hus,in Newswee: "nc. v. "ntermediate $ppellateCourt ,1? we dismissed a complaint for li/ela)ainst Newswee: "nc., on the )round thatprivate respondents failed to state a cause of action since the+ made no alle)ation in thecomplaint that an+thin) contained in the articlecomplained of speci"call+ referred to an+ of them. Private respondents, incorporatedassociations of su)arcane planters in Ne)ros'ccidental claimin) to have E,- mem/ersand several individual mem/ers, "led a classaction suit for dama)es in /ehalf of allsu)arcane planters in Ne)ros 'ccidental. &hecomplaint "led in the Court of First Instance of acolod Cit+ alle)ed that Newswee%, Inc.,committed li/el a)ainst them /+ thepu/lication of the article Island of Fear in itswee%l+ newsma)a=ine alle)edl+ depictin)Ne)ros Province as a place dominated /+wealth+ landowners and su)ar planters whonot onl+ e2ploited the impoverished andunderpaid su)arcane wor%ers /ut also
/rutali=ed and %illed them with impunit+.
Private respondents alle)ed that the articleshowed a deli/erate and malicious use of falsehood, slanted presentation and7ormisrepresentation of facts intended to put thesu)arcane planters in a /ad li)ht, e2pose themto pu/lic ridicule, discredit and humiliation inthe Philippines and a/road, and ma%e them theo/ects of hatred, contempt and hostilit+ of their a)ricultural wor%ers and of the pu/lic in)eneral. e ratiocinated L
2 2 2 where the defamation is alle)ed to have/een directed at a )roup or class, it is essentialthat the statement must /e so sweepin) or all5em/racin) as to appl+ to ever+ individual inthat )roup or class, or su;cientl+ speci"c sothat each individual in the class or )roup canprove that the defamator+ statementspeci"call+ pointed to him, so that he can /rin)the action separatel+, if need /e 2 2 2 2 &hecase at /ar is not a class suit. It is not a casewhere one or more ma+ sue for the /ene"t of all, or where the representation of class
interest a*ected /+ the ud)ment or decree isindispensa/le to ma%e each mem/er of theclass an actual part+. e have here a casewhere each of the plainti*s has a separate anddistinct reputation in the communit+. &he+ donot have a common or )eneral interest in thesu/ect matter of the controvers+.
In the present case, there was no fairl+identi"a/le person who was alle)edl+ inured/+ the Bulgar article. 8ince the personsalle)edl+ defamed could not /e identi"a/le,private respondents have no individual causesof action0 hence, the+ cannot sue for a classalle)edl+ dispara)ed. Private respondents musthave a cause of action in common with theclass to which the+ /elon) to in order for thecase to prosper.
An individual (uslim has a reputation that ispersonal, separate and distinct in thecommunit+. :ach (uslim, as part of the lar)er(uslim communit+ in the Philippines of over"ve >-@ million people, /elon)s to a di*erenttrade and profession0 each has a var+in)interest and a diver)ent political and reli)iousview L some ma+ /e conservative, others
li/eral. A (uslim ma+ "nd the articledishonora/le, even /lasphemous0 others ma+"nd it as an opportunit+ to stren)then theirfaith and educate the non5/elievers and thein"dels. &here is no inur+ to the reputation of the individual (uslims who constitute thiscommunit+ that can )ive rise to an action for)roup li/el. :ach reputation is personal incharacter to ever+ person. &o)ether, the(uslims do not have a sin)le common
reputation that will )ive them a common or)eneral interest in the su/ect matter of thecontrovers+.
In $rcand v. #he Evening Call *u-lishingCompany ,14 the Dnited 8tates Court of Appealsheld that one )uidin) principle of )roup li/el isthat defamation of a large group does not giverise to a cause of action on the part of anindividual unless it can -e shown that he is thetarget of the defamatory matter .
&he rule on li/el has /een restrictive. In anAmerican case,1- a person had alle)edl+committed li/el a)ainst all persons of the $ewish reli)ion. &he Court held that there could/e no li/el a)ainst an e2tensive communit+ incommon law. In an :n)lish case, where li/elconsisted of alle)ations of immoralit+ in aCatholic nunner+, the Court considered that if the li/el were on the whole 9oman CatholicChurch )enerall+, then the defendant must /ea/solved.16 ith re)ard to the lar)est sectors insociet+, includin) reli)ious )roups, it ma+ /e)enerall+ concluded that no criminal action atthe /ehest of the state, or civil action on /ehalf of the individual, will lie.
In another case, the plainti*s claimed that all(uslims, num/erin) more than 6 million,were defamed /+ the airin) of a nationaltelevision /roadcast of a "lm depictin) thepu/lic e2ecution of a 8audi Ara/ian princessaccused of adulter+, and alle)in) that such "lmwas insultin) and defamator+ to the Islamicreli)ion.1< &he Dnited 8tates !istrict Court of the Northern !istrict of California concludedthat the plainti*s pra+er for W3 illion indama)es arisin) from an internationalconspirac+ to insult, ridicule, discredit and
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 33/49
a/use followers of Islam throu)hout the world,Ara/s and the Oin)dom of 8audi Ara/ia/ordered on the frivolous, rulin) that theplainti*s had failed to demonstrate anactiona/le claim for defamation. &he CaliforniaCourt stressed that the aim of the law ondefamation was to protect individuals0 a )roupma+ /e su;cientl+ lar)e that a statementconcernin) it could not defame individual)roup mem/ers.1E
Philip itten/er), in his /oo% 'angerousords $ %uide to the )aw of )i-el ,1 discussesthe inappropriateness of an+ action for tortiousli/el involvin) lar)e )roups, and provides asuccinct illustrationB
&here are )roupin)s which ma+ /e "niteenou)h so that a description of the /od+ is adescription of the mem/ers. ere the pro/lemis merel+ one of evaluation. Is the descriptionof the mem/er implicit in the description of the
/od+, or is there a possi/ilit+ that a descriptionof the /od+ ma+ consist of a variet+ of persons,those included within the char)e, and thosee2cluded from it
A )eneral char)e that the law+ers in the cit+are sh+sters would o/viousl+ not /e a char)ethat all of the law+ers were sh+sters. A char)ethat the law+ers in a local point in a )reat cit+,such as &imes 8quare in New Sor% Cit+, weresh+sters would o/viousl+ not include all of thelaw+ers who practiced in that district0 /ut astatement that all of the law+ers who practiced
in a particular /uildin) in that district weresh+sters would /e a speci"c char)e, so thatan+ law+er havin) an o;ce within that /uildin)could sue.
If the )roup is a ver+ lar)e one, then thealle)ed li/elous statement is considered tohave no application to an+one in particular,since one mi)ht as well defame all man%ind.Not onl+ does the )roup as such have noaction0 the plainti* does not esta/lish an+personal reference to himself.3 At present,modern societal )roups are /oth numerous and
comple2. &he same principle follows with these)roupsB as the si=e of these )roups increases,
the chances for mem/ers of such )roups torecover dama)es on tortious li/el /ecomeelusive. &his principle is said to em/race two>3@ important pu/lic policiesB 8rst , where the)roup referred to is lar)e, the courts presumethat no reasona/le reader would ta%e thestatements as so literall+ appl+in) to eachindividual mem/er0 and second, the limitationon lia/ilit+ would satisfactoril+ safe)uardfreedom of speech and e2pression, as well as
of the press, e*ectin) a sound compromise/etween the conictin) fundamental interestsinvolved in li/el cases.31
In the instant case, the (uslim communit+ istoo vast as to readil+ ascertain who amon) the(uslims were particularl+ defamed. &he si=e of the )roup renders the reference asindeterminate and )eneric as a similar attac%on Catholics, Protestants, uddhists or(ormons would do. &he word (uslim isdescriptive of those who are /elievers of Islam,a reli)ion divided into var+in) sects, such as
the 8unnites, the 8hiites, the Ohariites, the8u"s and others /ased upon political andtheolo)ical distinctions. (uslim is a namewhich descri/es onl+ a )eneral se)ment of thePhilippine population, comprisin) ahetero)eneous /od+ whose construction is notso well de"ned as to render it impossi/le foran+ representative identi"cation.
&he Christian reli)ion in the Philippines isli%ewise divided into di*erent sectsB Catholic,aptist, :piscopalian, Pres/+terian, #utheran,and other )roups the essence of which ma+ liein an inspired charlatan, whose temple ma+ /ea corner house in the fr in)es of thecountr+side. As with the Christian reli)ion, so itis with other reli)ions that represent thenations culturall+ diverse people and ministerto each ones spiritual needs. &he (uslimpopulation ma+ /e divided into smaller )roupswith var+in) a)enda, from the pra+erfulconservative to the passionatel+ radical. &hesedivisions in the (uslim population ma+ still /etoo lar)e and am/i)uous to provide areasona/le inference to an+ personalit+ whocan /rin) a case in an action for li/el.
&he fore)oin) are in essence the same viewscholarl+ e2pressed /+ (r. $ustice 9e+nato 8.Puno in the course of the deli/erations in thiscase. e e2tensivel+ reproduce hereunder hiscomprehensive and penetratin) discussion on)roup li/el L
!efamation is made up of the twin torts of li/eland slander L the one /ein), in )eneral,written, while the other in )eneral is oral. Ineither form, defamation is an invasion of theinterest in reputation and )ood name. &his is arelational interest since it involves theopinion others in the communit+ ma+ have, ortend to have of the plainti*.
&he law of defamation protects the interest inreputation L the interest in acquirin), retainin)and eno+in) ones reputation as )ood as onescharacter and conduct warrant. &he mere factthat the plainti*s feelin)s and sensi/ilitieshave /een o*ended is not enou)h to create a
cause of action for defamation. !efamationrequires that somethin) /e communicated to athird person that ma+ a*ect the opinion othersma+ have of the plainti*. &he unprivile)edcommunication must /e shown of a statementthat would tend to hurt plainti*s reputation, toimpair plainti*s standin) in the communit+.
Althou)h the )ist of an action for defamation isan inur+ to reputation, the focus of adefamation action is upon the alle)edl+defamator+ statement itself and its predicta/lee*ect upon third persons. A statement is
ordinaril+ considered defamator+ if it tendsJto e2pose one to pu/lic hatred, shame,o/loqu+, contumel+, odium, contempt, ridicule,aversion, ostracism, de)radation or dis)race2 22. &he 9estatement of &orts de"nes adefamator+ statement as one that tends to soharm the reputation of another as to lower himin the estimation of the communit+ or to deterthird persons from associatin) or dealin) withhim.
Consequentl+ as a prerequisite to recover+, it isnecessar+ for the plainti* to prove as part of
his prima faciecase that the defendant >1@
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 34/49
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 35/49
such speech on the same )round asdefamation of an individual.
e do not a)ree to the contrar+ viewarticulated in the immediatel+ precedin)para)raph. Primaril+, an emotional distresstort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civilaction "led /+ an individual34 to assua)e theinuries to his emotional tranquilit+ due topersonal attac%s on his character. It has noapplication in the instant case since noparticular individual was identi"ed in thedisputed article of Bulgar . Also, the purporteddama)e caused /+ the article, assumin) therewas an+, falls under the principle of relationalharm L which includes harm to socialrelationships in the communit+ in the form of defamation0 as distin)uished from the principleof reactive harm L which includes inuries toindividual emotional tranquilit+ in the form of an inFiction of emotional distress. In theircomplaint, respondents clearl+ asserted analle)ed harm to the standin) of (uslims in the
communit+, especiall+ to their activities inpropa)atin) their faith in (etro (anila and inother non5(uslim communities in thecountr+.3-It is thus /e+ond cavil that thepresent case falls within the application of the relational harm principle of tort actions fordefamation, rather than the reactive harm principle on which the concept of emotionaldistress properl+ /elon)s.
(oreover, under the Second Restatement of the )aw, to recover for the intentional inictionof emotional distress the plainti* must showthatB >a@ &he conduct of the defendant wasintentional or in rec%less disre)ard of theplainti*0 >/@ &he conduct was e2treme andoutra)eous0 >c@ &here was a causal connection/etween the defendants conduct and theplainti*s mental distress0 and, >d@ &heplainti*s mental distress was e2treme andsevere.36
:2treme and outra)eous conduct meansconduct that is so outra)eous in character, andso e2treme in de)ree, as to )o /e+ond allpossi/le /ounds of decenc+, and to /ere)arded as atrocious, and utterl+ intolera/le in
civili=ed societ+. &he defendants actions musthave /een so terrif+in) as naturall+ tohumiliate, em/arrass or fri)hten theplainti*.3< Henerall+, conduct will /e found to/e actiona/le where the recitation of the factsto an avera)e mem/er of the communit+would arouse his resentment a)ainst the actor,and lead him or her to e2claim, 'utra)eousXas his or her reaction.3E
:motional distress means an+ hi)hl+unpleasant mental reaction such as e2treme)rief, shame, humiliation, em/arrassment,an)er, disappointment, worr+, nausea, mentalsu*erin) and an)uish, shoc%, fri)ht, horror, andcha)rin.3 8evere emotional distress, in some urisdictions, refers to an+ t+pe of severe anddisa/lin) emotional or mental condition whichma+ /e )enerall+ reco)ni=ed and dia)nosed /+professionals trained to do so, includin)posttraumatic stress disorder, neurosis,ps+chosis, chronic depression, or pho/ia.? &heplainti* is required to show, amon) other
thin)s, that he or she has su*ered emotionaldistress so severe that no reasona/le personcould /e e2pected to endure it0 severity of thedistress is an element of the cause of actionnot simply a matter of damages.?1
An+ part+ see%in) recover+ for mental an)uishmust prove more than mere worr+, an2iet+,ve2ation, em/arrassment, or an)er. #ia/ilit+does not arise from mere insults, indi)nities,threats, anno+ances, pett+ e2pressions, orother trivialities. In determinin) whether thetort of outra)e had /een committed, a plainti* is necessaril+ e2pected and required to /ehardened to a certain amount of criticism,rou)h lan)ua)e, and to occasional acts andwords that are de"nitel+ inconsiderate andun%ind0 the mere fact that the actor %nows thatthe other will re)ard the conduct as insultin),or will have his feelin)s hurt, is not enou)h.?3
(ustler Maga/ine v. !alwell?? illustrates the testcase of a civil action for dama)es onintentional iniction of emotional distress. Aparod+ appeared in ustler ma)a=ine featurin)the American fundamentalist preacher andevan)elist 9everend $err+ Falwell depictin) him
in an ine/riated state havin) an incestuous,se2ual liaison with his mother in an outhouse.Falwell sued ustler and its pu/lisher #arr+Fl+nt for dama)es. &he Dnited 8tates !istrictCourt for the estern !istrict of Gir)inia ruledthat the parod+ was not li/elous, /ecause noreasona/le reader would have understood it asa factual assertion that Falwell en)a)ed in theact descri/ed. &he ur+, however, awardedW3, in dama)es on a separate count of
intentional iniction of emotional distress, acause of action that did not require a falsestatement of fact to /e made. &he Dnited8tates 8upreme Court in a unanimous decisionoverturned the ur+ verdict of the Gir)inia Courtand held that Reverend !alwell may not recover for intentional inFiction of emotionaldistress. It was ar)ued that the material mi)ht/e deemed outra)eous and ma+ have /eenintended to cause severe emotional distress,/ut these circumstances were not su;cient toovercome the free speech ri)hts )uaranteedunder the First Amendment of the Dnited
8tates Constitution. 8impl+ stated, anintentional tort causin) emotional distressmust necessaril+ )ive wa+ to the fundamentalri)ht to free speech.
It must /e o/served that althou)h Falwell wasre)arded /+ the D.8. i)h Court as a pu/lic")ure, he was anindividual particularly singledout or identi8ed in the parod+ appearin) onustler ma)a=ine. Also, the emotional distressalle)edl+ su*ered /+ 9everend Falwell involveda reactive interest L an emotional response tothe parod+ which supposedl+ inured his
ps+cholo)ical well5/ein).
Geril+, our position is clear that the conduct of petitioners was not e2treme or outra)eous.Neither was the emotional distress alle)edl+su*ered /+ respondents so severe that noreasona/le person could /e e2pected to endureit. &here is no evidence on record that points tothat result.
Professor illiam Prosser, views tort actions onintentional iniction of emotional distress inthis manner?4 L
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 36/49
&here is virtuall+ unanimous a)reement thatsuch ordinar+ defendants are not lia/le formere insult, indi)nit+, anno+ance, or eventhreats, where the case is lac%in) in othercircumstances of a))ravation. &he reasons arenot far to see%. 'ur manners, and with themour law, have not +et pro)ressed to the pointwhere we are a/le to a*ord a remed+ in theform of tort dama)es for all intended mentaldistur/ance. #ia/ilit+ of course cannot /e
e2tended to ever+ trivial indi)nit+ 2 2 2 2 &heplainti* must necessaril+ /e e2pected andrequired to /e hardened to a certain amount of rou)h lan)ua)e, and to acts that are de"nitel+inconsiderate and un%ind 2 2 2 &he plainti* cannot recover merel+ /ecause of hurtfeelin)s.
Professor Calvert (a)ruder reinforces Prosserwith this succinct o/servation, vi/ B?-
&here is no occasion for the law to
intervene in ever+ case wheresomeones feelin)s are hurt. &heremust still /e freedom to e2press anunatterin) opinion, and some safet+valve must /e left throu)h whichirasci/le tempers ma+ /low o* relativel+ harmless steam.
&hus, it is evident that even American courtsare reluctant to adopt a rule of recover+ foremotional harm that would open up a widevista of liti)ation in the "eld of /ad manners,an area in which a tou)henin) of the mental
hide was thou)ht to /e a more appropriateremed+.?6 Perhaps of )reater concern were thequestions of causation, proof, and the a/ilit+ toaccuratel+ assess dama)es for emotionalharm, each of which continues to concerncourts toda+.?<
In this connection, the doctrinesin Chaplins:y and Beauharnais had lar)el+/een superseded /+ su/sequent FirstAmendment doctrines. ac% in simpler times inthe histor+ of free e2pression the 8upremeCourt appeared to espouse a theor+, %nown as
the #woClass #heory , that treated certaint+pes of e2pression as ta/oo forms of speech,
/eneath the di)nit+ of the First Amendment. &he most cele/rated statement of this viewwas e2pressed in Chaplins:y B
&here are certain well5de"ned and narrowl+limited classes of speech, the prevention andpunishment of which have never /een thou)htto raise an+ Constitutional pro/lem. &heseinclude the lewd and o/scene, the profane, theli/elous, and the insultin) or ")htin) words Lthose which /+ their ver+ utterance inictinur+ or tend to incite an immediate /reach of the peace. It has /een well o/served that suchutterances are no essential part of an+e2position of ideas, and are of such sli)htsocial value as a step to truth that an+ /ene"tthat ma+ /e derived from them is clearl+outwei)hed /+ the social interest in order andmoralit+.
&oda+, however, the theor+ is no lon)er via/le0modern First Amendment principles have
passed it /+. American courts no lon)er acceptthe view that speech ma+ /e proscri/ed merel+/ecause it is lewd, profane, insultin) orotherwise vul)ar or o*ensive.?E Cohen v.California? is illustrativeB Paul 9o/ert Cohenwore a ac%et /earin) the words Fuc% the!raft in a #os An)eles courthouse in April16E, which caused his eventual arrest. Cohenwas convicted for violatin) a California statuteprohi/itin) an+ person from distur/in)J thepeace 2 2 2 /+ o*ensive conduct. &he D.8.8upreme Court conceded that Cohense2pletive contained in his ac%et was vul)ar,/ut it concluded that his speech was
nonetheless protected /+ the ri)ht to freespeech. It was neither considered anincitement to ille)al action nor o/scenit+. Itdid not constitute insultin) or ")htin) wordsfor it had not /een directed at a person whowas li%el+ to retaliate or at someone who couldnot avoid the messa)e. In other words, no onewas present in the #os An)eles courthouse whowould have re)arded Cohens speech as adirect personal insult, nor was there an+dan)er of reactive violence a)ainst him.
No speci8c individual was targeted in theallegedly defamatory words printed on Cohen4s
1ac:et . &he conviction could onl+ /e usti"ed /+Californias desire to e2ercise the /road powerin preservin) the cleanliness of discourse in thepu/lic sphere, which the D.8. 8upreme Courtrefused to )rant to the 8tate, holdin) that noo/ective distinctions can /e made /etweenvul)ar and nonvul)ar speech, and that theemotive elements of speech are ust asessential in the e2ercise of this ri)ht as thepurel+ co)nitive. As (r. $ustice arlan so
eloquentl+ wroteB 'Jne mans vul)arit+ isanother mans l+ric 2 2 2 words are oftenchosen as much for their emotive as theirco)nitive force.4 ith Cohen, the D.8.8upreme Court "nall+ laid the Constitutionalfoundation for udicial protection of provocativeand potentiall+ o*ensive speech.
8imilarl+, li/elous speech is no lon)er outsidethe First Amendment protection. 'nl+ onesmall piece of the #woClass#heory in Chaplins:y survives L D.8. courtscontinue to treat o/scene speech as not
within the protection of the First Amendment atall. ith respect to the ")htin) wordsdoctrine, while it remains alive it was modi"ed/+ the current ri)orous clear and presentdan)er test.41 &hus, in Cohen the D.8. 8upremeCourt in appl+in) the test held that there wasno showin) that Cohens ac%et /earin) thewords Fuc% the !raft had threatened toprovo%e imminent violence0 and that protectin)the sensi/ilities of onloo%ers was notsu;cientl+ compellin) interest to restrainCohens speech.
Beauharnais, which closel+ followedthe Chaplins:y doctrine, su*ered the same fateas Chaplins:y . Indeed, whenBeauharnais wasdecided in 1-3, the &wo5Class &heor+ was stillourishin). hile concededl+ the D.8. i)h &ri/unal did not formall+ a/andon Beauharnais,the seminal shifts in D.8. constitutional urisprudence su/stantiall+undercut Beauharnais and seriousl+undermined what is left of its vitalit+ as aprecedent. Amon) the cases that dealt acrushin) impact on Beauharnais and renderedit almost certainl+ a dead letter case law
are Branden-urg v. &hio,43 and, a)ain, Cohen v.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 37/49
California.4? &hese decisions reco)ni=e a muchnarrower set of permissi/le )rounds forrestrictin) speech than did Beauharnais.44
In Branden-urg, appellant who was a leader of the Ou Olu2 Olan was convicted under the 'hioCriminal 8+ndicalism 8tatute for advocatin) thenecessit+, dut+ and propriet+ of crime,sa/ota)e, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishin)industrial or political reforms0 and forvoluntaril+ assem/lin) with a )roup formed toteach or advocate the doctrines of criminals+ndicalism. Appellant challen)ed the statuteand was sustained /+ the D.8. 8upreme Court,holdin) that the advocac+ of ille)al action/ecomes punisha/le onl+ if such advocacy isdirected to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is li:ely to incite or producesuch action.4- :2cept in unusualinstances, Branden-urg protects the advocac+of lawlessness as lon) as such speech is nottranslated into action.
&he importance of the Branden-urg rulin)cannot /e overemphasi=ed. Prof. 8mollaa;rmed that Branden-urgmust /e understoodas overrulin) Beauharnais and eliminatin) thepossi/ilit+ of treatin) )roup li/el under thesame First Amendment standards as individualli/el.46 It ma+ well /e considered as one of thel+nchpins of the modern doctrine of freespeech, which see%s to )ive special protectionto politicall+ relevant speech.
In an+ case, respondents lac% of cause of action cannot /e cured /+ the "lin) of a classsuit. As correctl+ pointed out /+ (r. $ustice $oseC. Gitu) durin) the deli/erations, an elementof a class suit is the adequac+ of representation. In determinin) the question of fair and adequate representation of mem/ersof a class, the court must consider >a@ whetherthe interest of the named part+ is coe2tensivewith the interest of the other mem/ers of theclass0 >/@ the proportion of those made partiesas it so /ears to the total mem/ership of theclass0 and, >c@ an+ other factor /earin) on thea/ilit+ of the named part+ to spea% for the restof the class.4<
&he rules require that courts must ma%e surethat the persons intervenin) should /esu;cientl+ numerous to full+ protect theinterests of all concerned. In the presentcontrovers+, Islamic !awah Council of thePhilippines, Inc., see%s in e*ect to assert theinterests not onl+ of the (uslims in thePhilippines /ut of the whole (uslim world aswell. Private respondents o/viousl+ lac% thesu;cienc+ of num/ers to represent such a
)lo/al )roup0 neither have the+ /een a/le todemonstrate the identit+ of their interests withthose the+ see% to represent. Dnless it can /eshown that there can /e a safe )uarant+ thatthose a/sent will /e adequatel+ represented /+those present, a class suit, )iven its ma)nitudein this instance, would /e unavailin).4E
#i%ewise on the matter of dama)es, we a)reethat moral dama)es ma+ /e recovered onl+ if the plainti* is a/le to satisfactoril+ prove thee2istence of the factual /asis for the dama)esand its causal connection with the acts
complained of,4 and so it must /e, as moraldama)es althou)h incapa/le of pecuniar+estimation are desi)ned not to impose apenalt+ /ut to compensate for inur+ sustainedand actual dama)es su*ered.- :2emplar+dama)es, on the other hand, ma+ onl+ /eawarded if claimant is a/le to esta/lish hisri)ht to moral, temperate, liquidated orcompensator+ dama)es.-1 Dnfortunatel+,neither of the requirements to sustain anaward for either of these dama)es wouldappear to have /een adequatel+ esta/lished /+respondents.
In a pluralistic societ+ li%e the Philippineswhere misinformation a/out anotherindividuals reli)ion is as commonplace as self5appointed critics of )overnment, it would /emore appropriate to respect the fair criticism of reli)ious principles, includin) those which ma+/e outra)eousl+ appallin), immensel+erroneous, or those couched as fairl+informative comments. &he )reater dan)er inour societ+ is the possi/ilit+ that it ma+encoura)e the frequenc+ of suits amon)reli)ious fundamentalists, whether Christian,
(uslim, indu, uddhist, $ewish, or others. &his
would unnecessaril+ ma%e the civil courts a/attle)round to assert their spiritual ideas, andadvance their respective reli)ious a)enda.
It need not /e stressed that this Court has nopower to determine which is proper reli)iousconduct or /elief0 neither does it have theauthorit+ to rule on the merits of one reli)ionover another, nor declare which /elief touphold or cast asunder, for the validit+ of reli)ious /eliefs or values are outside thesphere of the udiciar+. 8uch matters are /etterleft for the reli)ious authorities to address whatis ri)htfull+ within their doctrine and realm of inuence. Courts must /e viewpoint5neutralwhen it comes to reli)ious matters if onl+ toa;rm the neutralit+ principle of free speechri)hts under modern urisprudence where aJllideas are treated equal in the e+es of the FirstAmendment L even those ideas that areuniversall+ condemned and run counter toconstitutional principles.-3 Dnder the ri)ht tofree speech, there is no such thin) as a false
idea. owever pernicious an opinion ma+seem, we depend for its correction not on theconscience of ud)es and uries /ut on thecompetition of otherideas.-? 'enying certiorari and a;rmin) theappellate court decision would surel+ create achillin) e*ect on the constitutional )uaranteesof freedom of speech, of e2pression, and of thepress.
:9:F'9:, the petition is H9AN&:!. &heassailed !ecision of the Court of Appeals dated3< Au)ust 1E is 9:G:98:! and 8:& A8I!:,
and the !ecision of the 9&C5r. 4, (anila,dismissin) the complaint for lac% of merit, is9:IN8&A&:! and AFFI9(:!. Nopronouncement as to costs.
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 38/49
G.R. No. 1472 D%8%?@%0 1, 2//5*ILI**INE J)RNALI(T(, IN'. :*E)*LE(
J)RNAL;, 3A'ARIA( NGID, JR. and'RI(TINA LEE,*%t#t#on%0s,&s.FRAN'I( T)ENEN, R%s!ond%nt.'I')-NA3ARI), J.
For almost a centur+, this Court has sou)ht
that elusive equili/rium /etween the law ondefamation on one hand, and the
constitutionall+ )uaranteed freedoms of
speech and press on the other. &his case
revisits that search.
'n ? 8eptem/er 1, the followin) news
item appeared in the PeopleYs $ournal, a ta/loid
of )eneral circulationB
(#ss (oots N%#g@o0s *%ts
9:8I!:N&8 of a su/division in Paraaque have
as%ed the ureau of Immi)ration to deport a
8wiss who alle)edl+ shoots wa+ward
nei)h/orsY pets that he "nds in his domain.
&he F omes residents throu)h law+er Att+.
:fren An)ara complained that the deportation
of Francis &hoenen, of 1 Calcutta F omes
Phase III, could help prevent the recurrence of
such incident in the future.
An)ara e2plained that house owners could not
control their do)s and cats when the+ slip out
of their dwellin)s unnoticed.
An alle)ed confrontation /etween &hoenen and
the owner of a pet he shot recentl+ threatens
to e2acer/ate the pro/lem, An)ara said.
Cristina #ee1
&he su/ect of this article, Francis &hoenen, is a
retired en)ineer permanentl+ residin) in this
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 39/49
countr+ with his Filipina wife and their children.
Claimin) that the report was false and
defamator+, and that the petitioners acted
irresponsi/l+ in failin) to verif+ the truth of the
same prior to pu/lication, he "led a civil case
for dama)es a)ainst herein petitioners
Philippine $ournalists, Inc., Macarias Nu)uid, $r.,
its pu/lisher, and reporter Cristina #ee.
&hoenen claimed that the article destro+ed the
respect and admiration he eno+ed in the
communit+, and that since it had /een
pu/lished, he and his wife received several
queries and an)r+ calls from friends, nei)h/ors
and relatives. For the impairment of his
reputation and standin) in the communit+, and
his mental an)uish, &hoenen
sou)ht P3,. in moral
dama)es, P1,. in e2emplar+ dama)es,
and P-,. in attorne+Ys fees.
&he petitioners admitted pu/lication of the
news item, ostensi/l+ out of a social and
moral dut+ to inform the pu/lic on matters of
)eneral interest, promote the pu/lic )ood and
protect the moral pu/lic >sic3 of the people,
and that the stor+ was pu/lished in )ood faith
and without malice.3
&he principal source of the article was a
letter? /+ a certain Att+. :fren An)ara
addressed to Commissioner Andrea !omin)o of the Commission on Immi)ration and
!eportation >CI!, now ureau of Immi)ration@,
which statesB
!ear (adameB
e would li%e to request +our o;ce to verif+
the true status7authenticit+ of the residenc+ in
the Philippines of a forei)n national >a 8wiss@
/+ the name of Francis &hoenen who is
presentl+ residin) at No. 1 Calcuta cor. eirut
8treet, F omes >P. III@, Paraaque, (etro
(anila. I received >sic@ complaint from m+
clients residin) around his vicinit+ that this
forei)ner had >sic@ /een causin) trou/les ever
since he showed up. e is too meticulous and
had >sic@ /een shootin) do)s and cats passin)
his house wall ever+time.
8uch act which >sic@ is unaccepta/le to the
owners especiall+ if inspite >sic@ of control their
pets slips >sic@ out unnoticed. A confrontation
/etween him and the owner of the do) he
shoot, >sic@ alread+ occurred last time. In some
instances this )u+ had /een alwa+s drivin) his
car /ar/arousl+ inside the su/division with
children pla+in) around >sic@ the street. efore
m+ clients petitioned themselves with the
endorsement of the omeowners Association
and "led to +our o;ce for deportation weYre
respectfull+ see%in) +our assistance to
investi)ate this alien to prevent further
incident occurrence >sic@ in the future. eshould not /e allowed to dominate the citi=ens
of this countr+.
Ger+ trul+ +ours,
Att+. :fren . An)ara
&he petitioners claim that #ee, as the reporter
assi)ned to cover news events in the CI!,
acquired a cop+ of the a/ove letter from a
trusted source in the CI!Ys Intelli)ence!ivision. &he+ claimed to have reasona/le
)rounds to /elieve in the truth and veracit+ of
the information derived >from their@ sources.4
It was proven at trial that the news article
contained several inaccuracies. &he headline,
which cate)oricall+ stated that the su/ect of
the article en)a)ed in the practice of shootin)
pets, was untrue.- (oreover, it is immediatel+
apparent from a comparison /etween the
a/ove letter and the news item in question that
while the letter is a mere request for
veri"cation of &hoenenYs status, #ee wrote that
residents of F omes had as%ed the ureau
of Immi)ration to deport a 8wiss who alle)edl+
shoots nei)h/orsY pets. No complaints had in
fact /een lod)ed a)ainst him /+ an+ of the F
omeowners,6 nor had an+ pendin)
deportation proceedin)s /een initiated a)ainst
him in the ureau of Immi)ration.<
&hoenen also su/mitted a Certi"cationE from
the ';ce of the ar Con"dant that there was
no law+er in its rolls /+ the name of :fren
An)ara, earlier cited /+ petitioner #ee as the
author of the letter on which she /ased her
article. Finall+, the trial also showed that
despite the fact that respondentYs address was
indicated in the letter, Cristina #ee made no
e*orts to contact either him or the purported
letter5writer, Att+. An)ara.
&he petitioners claim that #ee sou)htcon"rmation of the stor+ from the newspaperYs
correspondent in Paraaque, who told her that
a woman who refused to identif+ herself
con"rmed that there had indeed /een an
incident of pet5shootin) in the nei)h/orhood
involvin) the respondent.1 owever, the
correspondent in question was never presented
in court to verif+ the truth of this alle)ation.
Neither was the alle)ed CI! source presented
to verif+ that the a/ove letter had indeed come
from the !epartment, nor even that the samewas a certi"ed true cop+ of a letter on "le in
their o;ce.
'n ?1 Au)ust 14, the 9e)ional &rial Court,
ranch 63, (a%ati Cit+, rendered a !ecision11 in
favor of the petitioners, which reads in partB
&here is no malice on the part of the
defendants in pu/lishin) the news item done in
the e2ercise of their profession as ournalists
reportin) to the people on matters of pu/lic
interest. &he news report was /ased on an
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 40/49
o;cial communication "led with the ureau of
Immi)ration and !eportation.
As noted /+ the Court of Appeals in (arti>r@e=
vs. Alanao, CA5H.9 No. 3<E6, 8eptem/er ?,
11, which is similar to the present caseB
hile indeed, the news item su/ect of the
present case mi)ht have ruUed thesensitivities of plainti*, this Court however
/elieves that the alle)ed defamator+ articles
falls within the purview of a quali"edl+
privile)ed matter, and that therefore, it cannot
/e presumed to /e malicious. &he onus of
provin) malice is accordin)l+ shifted to the
plainti*, that is, that he must prove that the
defendants were actuated /+ ill5will in what
the+ caused to /e printed and pu/lished, with a
desi)n to carelessl+ or wantonl+ inure the
plainti*. >D8 vs. ustos, et al., ?< Phil. <?1@
&his, plainti* failed to do, consequentl+, his
case must fall.
&he pu/lication in question is a privile)ed
communication protected /+ the freedom of
the press.
:9:F'9:, the Complaint is here/+ ordered
!I8(I88:! I&'D& P9'N'DNC:(:N& A8 &'
C'8&8.13
'n appeal, the court a quo reversed1? the trial
court. It held that althou)h freedom of
e2pression and the ri)ht of speech and of the
press are amon) the most =ealousl+ )uarded in
the Constitution, still, in the e2ercise of these
ri)hts, Article 1 of the Civil Code requires
ever+one to act with ustice, )ive ever+one his
due, and o/serve honest+ and )ood faith. &he
appellate court emphasi=ed that &hoenen was
neither a pu/lic o;cial nor a pu/lic ")ure, and
thus,
. . . :Jven without malice on the part of
defendants5appellees, the news item pu/lished
in the ? 8eptem/er 1 edition of PeopleYs
$ournal had /een done in violation of the
principle of a/use of ri)ht under Article 1 of
the Civil Code, in the a/sence of a /ona "de
e*ort to ascertain the truth thereof, i.e., to
o/serve honest+ and )ood faith, which ma%es
their act a wron)ful omission. Neither did the+
act with ustice and )ive ever+one his due,
/ecause without ascertainin) the veracit+ of
the information )iven them /+ the Intelli)ence
ureau of the ureau of Immi)ration, the+
pu/lished a news article which the+ were
aware would /rin) the person speci"call+
named therein, vi=, Francis &hoenen, the
plainti*5appellant in this case, into disrepute.
Z.
:9:F'9:, the fore)oin) considered, the!ecision appealed from is here/+ 9:G:98:!
and 8:& A8I!:. In its stead, e "nd for the
appellant and award him moral dama)es
of P3,.0 e2emplar+ dama)es
ofP-,., and le)al fees to P?,.0 all
of which shall /e /orne ointl+ and severall+ /+
appellees.14
PetitionersY motion for reconsideration havin)
/een denied,1- this petition for certiorari under
9ule 4- of the 1< 9ules of Civil Procedurewas "led on the followin) )roundsB
1. &he Court of Appeals erred in "ndin) the
petitioners Cristina #ee, Nu)uid and P$I lia/le
under Article 1 of the Civil Code.
3. &he Court of Appeals erred in "ndin) the
petitioners lia/le for li/el even if the article was
/ased on a letter released /+ the ureau of
Immi)ration, hence a quali"ed privile)e
communication.
?. &he Court of Appeals erred in concludin)
that petitioners did not ascertain the truth of
the su/ect news item.
4. &he Court of Appeals erred in awardin)
dama)es notwithstandin) that the same was
e2cessive unconsciona/le and devoid of an+
/asis.
&he petitioners ar)ue that this case is one for
dama)es arisin) from li/el, and not one for
a/use of ri)hts under the New Civil Code. &he+
further claim the constitutional protections
e2tended /+ the freedom of speech and of the
press clause of the 1E< Constitution a)ainst
lia/ilit+ for li/el, claimin) that the article was
pu/lished in ful"llment of its social and moral
dut+ to inform the pu/lic on matters of
)eneral interest, promote the pu/lic )ood and
protect the moral fa/ricJ of the people.16 &he+
insist that the news article was /ased on aletter released /+ the ureau of Immi)ration,
and is thus a qual i"edl+ privile)ed
communication. &o recover dama)es, the
respondent must prove its pu/lication was
attended /+ actual malice 5 that is, with
%nowled)e that it was false or with rec%less
disre)ard of whether it was false or not.1<
For the reasons stated /elow, we hold that the
constitutional privile)e )ranted under the
freedom of speech and the press a)ainstlia/ilit+ for dama)es does not e2tend to the
petitioners in this case.
#he freedom of speech and of the press is not
a-solute. &he freedom of speech and press and
assem/l+, "rst laid down /+ President (cOinle+
in the Instruction to the 8econd Philippine
Commission of < April 1, is an
almost ver-atim restatement of the "rst
amendment of the Constitution of the Dnited
8tates.1E :nshrined in 8ection 4, Article III of
the ill of 9i)hts of the 1E< Constitution, it
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 41/49
states, No law shall /e passed a/rid)in) the
freedom of speech, of e2pression, or of the
press, or the ri)ht of the people peacea/l+ to
assem/le and petition the )overnment for
redress of )rievances.
ut not all speech is protected. &he ri)ht of
free speech is not a/solute at all times and
under all circumstances. &here are certain well5
de"ned and narrowl+ limited classes of speech,
the prevention and punishment of which has
never /een thou)ht to raise an+ Constitutional
pro/lem. &hese include the lewd and o/scene,
the profane, the li/elous, and the insultin) or
[")htin)Y words 5 those which /+ their ver+
utterance inict inur+ or tend to incite an
immediate /reach of the peace. It has /een
well o/served that such utterances are no
essential part of an+ e2position of ideas, and
are of such sli)ht social value as a step to truth
that an+ /ene"t that ma+ /e derived fromthem is clearl+ outwei)hed /+ the social
interest in order and moralit+. 1
)i-el is not protected speech. Article ?-? of the
9evised Penal Code de"nes li/el as a pu/lic
and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or ima)inar+, or an+ act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance
tendin) to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or uridical person, or to
/lac%en the memor+ of one who is dead.
For an imputation to /e li/elous, the followin)
requisites must /e metB >a@ the alle)ation of a
discredita/le act or condition concernin)
another0 >/@ pu/lication of the char)e0 >c@
identit+ of the person defamed0 and >d@
e2istence of malice.3 In asque/ v. Court of
$ppeals,31 we had occasion to further e2plain.
&husB
An alle)ation is considered defamatory if i t
ascri/es to a person the commission of a
crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real
or ima)inar+, or an+ act, omission, condition,
status or circumstance which tends to dishonor
or discredit or put him in contempt, or which
tends to /lac%en the memor+ of one who is
dead.
&here is pu-lication if the material is
communicated to a third person. It is not
required that the person defamed has read or
heard a/out the li/elous remar%. hat is
material is that a third person has read or
heard the li/elous statement, for a manYs
reputation is the estimate in which others hold
him, not the )ood opinion which he has of
himself.
'n the other hand, to satisf+ the element
of identi8a-ility , it must /e shown that at least
a third person or a stran)er was a/le to identif+
him as the o/ect of the defamator+ statement.
Finall+, malice or ill will must /e present. Art.
?-4 of the 9evised Penal Code providesB
:ver+ defamator+ imputation is presumed to
/e malicious, even if it /e true, if no )ood
intention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is
shown, e2cept in the followin) casesB
1. A private communication made /+ an+
person to another in the performance of an+le)al, moral or securit+ dut+0 and
3. A fair and true report, made in )ood faith,
without an+ comments or remar%s, of an+
udicial, le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s
which are not of con"dential nature, or of an+
statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedin)s, or of an+ other act performed /+
pu/lic o;cers in the e2ercise of their functions.
>citations omitted emphasis supplied@
In this case, there is no controvers+ as to the
e2istence of the three elements. &he
respondentYs name and address were clearl+
indicated in the article ascri/in) to him the
questiona/le practice of shootin) the wa+ward
pets of his nei)h/ors. &he /ac%lash caused /+
the pu/lication of the article was in fact such
that stones had /een thrown at their house,
/rea%in) several ower pots, and dail+ and
ni)htl+ calls compelled him to request a
chan)e of their telephone num/er.33 &hese
facts are not contested /+ the petitioners.
hat the petitioners claim is the a/sence of
proof of the fourth element 5 malice.
$s a general rule malice is presumed. Article
?-4 of the 9evised Penal Code statesB
A9&. ?-4. Requirement of *u-licity. Every
defamatory imputation is presumed to -e
malicious, even if it /e true, if no )oodintention and usti"a/le motive for ma%in) it is
shown, e2cept in the followin) casesB
1. A private communication made /+ an+
person to another in the performance of an+
le)al, moral or social dut+0 and
3. A fair and true report, made in )ood faith,
without an+ comments or remar%s, of an+
udicial, le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s
which are not of con"dential nature, or of an+statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedin)s, or of an+ other act performed /+
pu/lic o;cers in the e2ercise of their functions.
#he article is not a privileged communication.
e "rst discussed the freedom of speech and
press and assem/l+visavis the laws on li/el
and slander in the )round/rea%in) case of US
v. Bustos,3? where we applied the prevailin)
:n)lish and American urisprudence to the
e*ect thatB
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 42/49
&he interest of societ+ and the maintenance of
)ood )overnment demand a full discussion of
pu/lic a*airs. Complete li/ert+ to comment on
the conduct of pu/lic men is a scalpel in the
case of free speech. &he sharp incision of its
pro/e relieves the a/scesses of o;cialdom.
(en in pu/lic life ma+ su*er under a hostile
and an unust accusation0 the wound can /e
assua)ed with the /alm of a clear conscience.
A pu/lic o;cer must not /e too thin5s%inned
with reference to comment upon his o;cial
acts. 'nl+ thus can the intelli)ence and di)nit+
of the individual /e e2alted. 'f course,
criticism does not authori=e defamation.
Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the
8tate, so must e2pected criticism /e /orn for
the common )ood 9isin) superior to an+
o;cial, or set of o;cials, to the Chief
:2ecutive, to the #e)islature, to the $udiciar+ 5
to an+ or all the a)encies of Hovernment 5
pu/lic opinion should /e the constant source of li/ert+ and democrac+. >citations omitted@
&he demand to protect pu/lic opinion for the
welfare of societ+ and the orderl+
administration of )overnment inevita/l+ lead to
the adoption of the do8t0#n% o+ !0#&#"%g%d8o??un#8at#on. A privile)ed communication
ma+ /e either a/solutel+ privile)ed or
quali"edl+ privile)ed. A/solutel+ privile)ed
communications are those which are not
actiona/le even if the author has acted in /ad
faith. An e2ample is found in 8ec. 11, Art. GI of
the 1E< Constitution which e2empts a
mem/er of Con)ress from lia/ilit+ for an+
speech or de/ate in the Con)ress or in an+
Committee thereof. Dpon the other hand,
quali"edl+ privile)ed communications
containin) defamator+ imputations are not
actiona/le unless found to have /een made
without )ood intention or usti"a/le motive. &o
this )enre /elon) [private communicationsY
and [fair and true report without an+ comments
or remar%s.Y34
&he appellate court correctl+ ruled that the
petitionersY stor+ is not privile)ed in character,
for it is neither private communication nor a
fair and true report without an+ comments or
remar%s.
US v. Bustos de"ned the concept of private
communication thusB A communication made
/ona "de upon an+ su/ect5matter in which the
part+ communicatin) has an interest, or in
reference to which he has a dut+, is privile)ed,
if made to a person havin) a correspondin)
interest or dut+, althou)h it contained
criminator+ matter which without this privile)e
would /e slanderous and actiona/le. A
pertinent illustration of the application of
quali"ed privile)e is a complaint made in )ood
faith and without malice in re)ard to the
character or conduct of a pu-lic o7cial when
addressed to an o;cer or a /oard havin) some
interest or dut+ in the matter.3-
&his defense is unavailin) to petitioners.
In 'ae/ v. Court of $ppeals36 we held thatB
As a rule, it is the ri)ht and dut+ of a citi=en to
ma%e a complaint of an+ misconduct on the
part of pu/lic o;cials, which comes to his
notice, to those char)ed with supervision over
them. 8uch a communication is quali"edl+
privile)ed and the author is not )uilt+ of li/el.
&he rule on privile)e, however, imposes anadditional requirement. 8uch complaints should
/e addressed solely to some o7cial having
1urisdiction to inquire into the charges or
power to redress the grievance or has some
duty to perform or interest in connection
therewith. >emphasis supplied@
In the instant case, even if we assume that the
letter written /+ the spurious Att+. An)ara is
privile)ed communication, it lost its character
as such when the matter was pu/lished in the
newspaper and circulated amon) the )eneral
population. A written letter containin) li/elous
matter cannot /e classi"ed as privile)ed when
it is pu/lished and circulated in pu/lic,3< which
was what the petitioners did in this case.
Neither is the news item a fair and true report
without an+ comments or remar%s of an+
udicial, le)islative or other o;cial proceedin)s0
there is in fact no proceedin) to spea% of. Nor
is the article related to an+ act performed /+
pu/lic o;cers in the e2ercise of their functions,
for it concerns onl+ false imputations a)ainst
&hoenen, a private individual see%in) a quiet
life.
&he petitioners also claim to have made the
report out of a social and moral dut+ to inform
the pu/lic on matters of )eneral interest.
In Bor1al v. Court of $ppeals, we stated that
the enumeration under Art. ?-4 is not an
e2clusive list of quali"edl+ privile)ed
communications since +a#0 8o??%nta0#%s on?att%0s o+ !u@"#8 #nt%0%st are li%ewise
privile)ed. e stated that the doctrine of fair
commentaries means that while in )eneral
ever+ discredita/le imputation pu/licl+ made is
deemed false, /ecause ever+ man is presumed
innocent until his )uilt is udiciall+ proved, and
ever+ false imputation is deemed malicious,
nevertheless, when the discredita/le
imputation is directed a)ainst a pu/lic personin his pu/lic capacit+, it is not necessaril+
actiona/le. In order that such discredita/le
imputation to a pu/lic o;cial ma+ /e
actiona/le, it must either /e a false alle)ation
of fact or a comment /ased on a false
supposition.3E
A)ain, this ar)ument is unavailin) to the
petitioners. As we said, the respondent is a
private individual, and not a pu/lic o;cial or
pu/lic ")ure. e are persuaded /+ the
reasonin) of the Dnited 8tates 8upreme Court
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 43/49
in %ert/ v. Ro-ert elch "nc.,3 that a
newspaper or /roadcaster pu/lishin)
defamator+ falsehoods a/out an #nd#&#dua"o #s n%#t%0 a !u@"#8 oH8#a" no0 a !u@"#8gu0% ma+ not claim a constitutional privile)e
a)ainst lia/ilit+, for inur+ inicted, %&%n #+ t%+a"s%ood a0os% #n a d#s8uss#on o+ !u@"#8#nt%0%st.?
avin) esta/lished that the article cannot /e
considered as privile)ed communication,
malice is therefore presumed, and the fourth
requisite for the imputation of li/el to attach to
the petitioners in this case is met. &he news
article is therefore defamator+ and is not within
the realm of protected speech. &here is no
lon)er a need to discuss the other assi)nment
of errors, save for the amount of dama)es to
which respondent is entitled.
In *olicarpio v. Manila #imes *u-lishing Co."nc.,?1 we awarded dama)es where the
defendants deli/eratel+ presented a private
individual in a worse li)ht that what she
actuall+ was, and where other factual errors
were not prevented althou)h defendants had
the means to ascertain the veracit+ of their
report. 8uch are the facts o/tainin) here.
e must point out that #eeYs /rief news item
contained falsehoods on two levels. 'n its face,
her statement that residents of F omes hadas%ed the ureau of Immi)ration to deport a
8wiss who alle)edl+ shoots nei)h/orsY pets is
patentl+ untrue since the letter of the spurious
Att+. An)ara was a mere request for veri"cation
of &hoenenYs status as a forei)n resident. #eeYs
article, moreover, is also untrue, in that the
events she reported never happened. &he
respondent had never shot an+ of his
nei)h/orsY pets, no complaints had /een
lod)ed a)ainst him /+ his nei)h/ors, and no
deportation proceedin)s had /een initiated
a)ainst him. orse, the author of #eeYs main
source of information, Att+. :fren An)ara,
apparentl+ either does not e2ist, or is not a
law+er. Petitioner #ee would have /een
enli)htened on su/stantiall+ all these matters
had she /ut tried to contact either An)ara or
&hoenen.
Althou)h it has /een stressed that a
newspaper should not /e held to account to a
point of suppression forhonest mista%es, or
imperfection in the choice of words,?3 even the
most li/eral view of free speech has never
countenanced the pu/lication of falsehoods,
especiall+ the persistent and unmiti)ated
dissemination of patent lies.?? &here is no
constitutional value in false statements of fact.
Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error
materiall+ advances societ+Ys interest in
[uninhi/ited, ro/ust, and wide5openY
de/ate.?4 &he use of the %nown lie as a tool is
at once at odds with the premises of democratic )overnment and with the orderl+
manner in which economic, social, or political
chan)e is to /e e*ected. Calculated falsehood
falls into that class of utterances which are no
essential part of an+ e2position of ideas, and
are of such sli)ht social value as a step to truth
that an+ /ene"t that ma+ /e derived from
them is clearl+ outwei)hed /+ the social
interest in order and moralit+Z &he %nowin)l+
false statement and the false statement made
with rec%less disre)ard of the truth, do not
eno+ constitutional protection >citations
omitted@.?-
&he le)itimate state interest underl+in) the law
of li/el is the compensation of the individuals
for the harm inicted upon them /+
defamator+ falsehood. After all, the individualYs
ri)ht to protection of his own )ood name
reects no more than our /asic concept of the
essential di)nit+ and worth of ever+ human
/ein) V a concept at the root of an+ decent
s+stem of ordered li/ert+.?6
&he appellate court awarded &hoenen moral
dama)es of P3,., e2emplar+ dama)es
of P-,. and le)al fees of P?,., to
/e /orne ointl+ and severall+ /+ the herein
petitioners. In %uevarra v. $lmario,?< we noted
that the dama)es in a li/el case must depend
upon the facts of the particular case and the
sound discretion of the court, althou)h
appellate courts were more li%el+ to reduce
dama)es for li/el than to increase them. ?E 8o
it is in this case.
:9:F'9:, the !ecision of the Court of
Appeals of 1< $anuar+ 3 reversin) the
!ecision of the 9e)ional &rial Court, ranch 63,
(a%ati Cit+, of ?1 Au)ust 14 is here/+
AFFI9(:!, su/ect to the modi"cation that
petitioners are ordered to pa+, ointl+ and
severall+, moral dama)es in the sum
of P1,., e2emplar+ dama)es
of P?,., and le)al fees of P3,.. Nocosts.
8' '9!:9:!.
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 44/49
G.R. No. 17525 August 2, 2/12LIL6 LIM, *%t#t#on%0, &s.K) ') *ING a.B.a. 'ARLIE'), R%s!ond%nt. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - G.R. No. 1791/K) ') *ING a.B.a. 'ARLIE'), *%t#t#on%0, &s.
LIL6 LIM, R%s!ond%nt.LE)NARD)-DE 'A(TR),
*ERLA(-ERNAE,
DEL 'A(TILL), J.:
Is it forum shoppin) for a private complainant
to pursue a civil complaint for speci"c
performance and dama)es, while appealin) the
ud)ment on the civil aspect of a criminal case
for estafa
efore the Court are consolidated Petitions for
9eview assailin) the separate !ecisions of the
8econd and 8eventeenth !ivisions of the Court
of Appeals >CA@ on the a/ove issue.
#il+ #imYs >#im@ Petition for 9eview1 assails the
'cto/er 3, 3- 9esolution3 of the 8econd
!ivision in CA5H.9. CG No. E-1?E, which ruled
on the a/ove issue in the a;rmativeB
!ue to the "lin) of the said civil complaint
>Civil Case No. -113?6@, Charlie Co "led the
instant motion to dismiss #il+ #imYsJ appeal,alle)in) that in "lin) said civil case, #il+ #im
violated the rule a)ainst forum shoppin) as the
elements of litis pendentia are present.
&his Court a)rees.?
IN GI: 'F &: F'9:H'INH, the appeal is
!I8(I88:!.
8' '9!:9:!.4
'n the other hand, Charlie CoYs >Co@ Petition
for 9eview- assails the April 1, 3<
!ecision6 of the 8eventeenth !ivision in CA5
H.9. 8P No. ??- for rulin) on the same issue
in the ne)ativeB
e "nd no )rave a/use of discretion
committed /+ respondent ud)e. &he elements
of litis pendentiaand forum5shoppin) were not
met in this case.<
EREF)RE, in view of the fore)oin), the
instant petition is DENIED. &his case
is REMANDED to the court of ori)in for further
proceedin)s.
8' '9!:9:!.E
!actual $ntecedents
In Fe/ruar+ 1, F9 Cement Corporation
>F9CC@, owner7operator of a cement
manufacturin) plant, issued several withdrawal
authorities for the account of cement dealers
and traders, Fil5Cement Center and &i)er/ilt.
&hese withdrawal authorities state the num/er
of /a)s that the dealer7trader paid for and can
withdraw from the plant. :ach withdrawal
authorit+ contained a provision that it is valid
for si2 months from its date of issuance, unless
revo%ed /+ F9CC (ar%etin) !epartment.
Fil5Cement Center and &i)er/ilt, throu)h their
administrative mana)er, Hail ora >ora@, sold
the withdrawal authorities coverin) -,
/a)s of cement to Co for the amount of P ?.1-
million or P 6?. per /a).1 'n Fe/ruar+ 1-,
1, Co sold these withdrawal authorities to
#im alle)edl+ at the price of P 64. per /a) or
a total of P ?.3 million.11
Dsin) the withdrawal authorities, #im withdrew
the cement /a)s from F9CC on a sta))ered
/asis. 8he successfull+ withdrew 3,E /a)s of
cement, and sold /ac% some of the withdrawal
authorities, coverin) 1, /a)s, to Co.
8ometime in April 1, F9CC did not allow #im
to withdraw the remainin) ?<,3 /a)s
covered /+ the withdrawal authorities. #im
clari"ed the matter with Co and ora, who
e2plained that the plant implemented a price
increase and would onl+ release the )oods
once #im pa+s for the price di*erence or
a)rees to receive a lesser quantit+ of cement.
#im o/ected and maintained that the
withdrawal authorities she /ou)ht were not
su/ect to price uctuations. #im sou)ht le)al
recourse after her demands for Co to resolve
the pro/lem with the plant or for the return of
her mone+ had failed.
#he criminal case
An Information for :stafa throu)h
(isappropriation or Conversion was "led
a)ainst Co /efore ranch 1-4 of the 9e)ional
&rial Court >9&C@ of Pasi) Cit+. &he accusator+
portion thereof readsB
'n or a/out /etween the months of Fe/ruar+
and April 1, in 8an $uan, (etro (anila and
within the urisdiction of this onora/le Court,
the accused, with intent to defraud #il+ #im,
with )rave a/use of con"dence, withunfaithfulness, received in trust from #il+ #im
cash mone+ in the amount of P3,?E,E. as
pa+ment for the ?<,3 /a)s of cement, under
o/li)ation to deliver the ?<,3 /a)s of cement
to said #il+ #im, /ut far from compl+in) with his
o/li)ation, misappropriated, misapplied and
converted to his own personal use and /ene"t
the said amount of P 3,?,E. sicJ and
despite demands, the accused failed and
refused to return said amount, to the dama)e
and preudice of #il+ #im in the amount
of P 3,?E,E..
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 45/49
Contrar+ to #aw.13
&he private complainant, #il+ #im, participated
in the criminal proceedin)s to prove her
dama)es. 8he pra+ed for Co to return her
mone+ amountin) to P 3,?E,E., fore)one
pro"ts, and le)al interest, and for an award of
moral and e2emplar+ dama)es, as well as
attorne+Ys fees.1?
'n Novem/er 1, 3?, the 9&C of Pasi) Cit+,
ranch 1-4, rendered its 'rder14 acquittin) Co
of the estafa char)e for insu;cienc+ of
evidence. &he criminal courtYs 'rder readsB
&he "rst and second elements of the crime of
estafa with a/use of con"dence under Article
?1-, para)raph 1>/@J for which the accused is
/ein) char)ed and prosecuted were not
esta/lished /+ the prosecutionYs evidence.
2 2 2 2
In view of the a/sence of the essential
requisites of the crime of estafa for which the
accused is /ein) char)ed and prosecuted, as
a/ove discussed, the Court has no alternative
/ut to dismiss the case a)ainst the accused for
insu;cienc+ of evidence.1-
EREF)RE, in view of the fore)oin),
the D%?u00%0 to E&#d%n8% is GRANTED, andthe accused is here/+ A'<ITTED of the
crime of estafa char)ed a)ainst him under the
present information for insu;cienc+ of
evidence.
Insofar as the civil lia/ilit+ of the accused is
concerned, however, set this case for the
reception of his evidence on the matter on
!ecem/er 11, 3? at EB? oYcloc% sicJ in the
mornin).
8' '9!:9:!.16
After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal
case, the Pasi) Cit+ 9&C also relieved Co of civil
lia/ilit+ to #im in its !ecem/er 1, 34
'rder.1< &he dispositive portion of the 'rder
reads as followsB
EREF)RE, premises considered, ud)mentis here/+ rendered holdin) the
accused 'ARLIE ') not civill+ lia/le to the
private complainant #il+ #im.
8' '9!:9:!.1E
#im sou)ht a reconsideration of the a/ove
'rder, ar)uin) that she has presented
preponderant evidence that Co committed
estafa a)ainst her.1
&he trial court denied the motion in its
'rder3 dated Fe/ruar+ 31, 3-.
'n (arch 14, 3-, #im "led her notice of
appeal31 on the civil aspect of the criminal
case. er appeal was doc%eted as CA5H.9. CG
No. E-1?E and raUed to the 8econd !ivision of
the CA.
#he civil action for speci8c performance
'n April 1, 3-, #im "led a complaint for
speci"c performance and dama)es /efore
ranch 31 of the 9&C of (anila. &he defendants
in the civil case were Co and all other parties to
the withdrawal authorities, &i)er/ilt, Fil5Cement
Center, F9CC, 8outheast Asia Cement, and #a
Far)e Corporation. &he complaint, doc%eted as
Civil Case No. -5113?6, asserted two causes
of actionB /reach of contract and a/use of
ri)hts. er alle)ations readB
A##:HA&I'N8 C'(('N
&' A## CAD8:8 'F AC&I'N
2 2 2 2
3?. Charlie Co o/li)ated himself to deliver to
#il+ #im -, /a)s of cement of P 64. per
/a) on an 25plant /asis within ? months from
the date of their transaction, i.e. Fe/ruar+ 1-,1. Pursuant to said a)reement, #il+ #im
paid Charlie Co P ?.3 (illion while Charlie Co
delivered to #il+ #im F9 Cement ithdrawal
Authorities representin) -, /a)s of
cement.
34. &he withdrawal authorities issued /+ F9
Cement Corp. allowed the assi)nee or holder
thereof to withdraw within a si25month period
from date a certain amount of cement
indicated therein. &he ithdrawal Authorities
)iven to #il+ #im were dated either ? Fe/ruar+1 or 3? Fe/ruar+ 1. &he ithdrawal
Authorities were "rst issued to &i)er/ilt and Fil5
Cement Center which in turn assi)ned them to
Charlie Co. Charlie Co then assi)ned the
ithdrawal Authorities to #il+ #im on Fe/ruar+
1-, 1. &hrou)h these series of assi)nments,
#il+ #im acquired all the ri)hts >ri)hts to
withdraw cement@ )ranted in said ithdrawal
Authorities.
3-. &hat these ithdrawal Authorities are validis esta/lished /+ the fact that F9 Cement
earlier allowed #il+ #im to withdraw 3,E /a)s
of cement on the /asis thereof.
36. owever, sometime 1 April 1 >within
the three >?@5month period a)reed upon /+
Charlie Co and #il+ #im and certainl+ within the
si2 >6@5month period indicated in the
ithdrawal Authorities issued /+ F9 Cement
Corp.@, #il+ #im attempted /ut failed to
withdraw the remainin) /a)s of cement on
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 46/49
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 47/49
Co "led a petition for certiorari,?3 doc%eted as
CA5H.9. 8P No. ??-, /efore the appellate
court. e pra+ed for the nulli"cation of the
(anila 9&CYs 'rder in Civil Case No. -5113?6
for havin) /een issued with )rave a/use of
discretion.??
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
e"enteenth !i"ision in CA-#.R. P $o.
,((,&
&he CA 8eventeenth !ivision denied CoYs
petition and remanded the civil complaint to
the trial court for further proceedin)s. &he CA
8eventeenth !ivision a)reed with the (anila
9&C that the elements of litis pendentia and
forum shoppin) are not met in the two
proceedin)s /ecause the+ do not share the
same cause of action.?4
&he CA denied?- CoYs motion forreconsideration.?6
Co "led the instant Petition for 9eview, which
was doc%eted as H.9. No. 1<16.
Dpon CoYs motion,?< the Court resolved to
consolidate the two petitions.?E
Gou Co *ingHs arguments
Co maintains that #im is )uilt+ of forum
shoppin) /ecause she is assertin) onl+ one
cause of action in CA5H.9. CG No. E-1?E >the
appeal from the civil aspect of Criminal Case
No. 116?<<@ and in Civil Case No. -5113?6,
which is for CoYs violation of her ri)ht to
receive ?<,3 /a)s of cement. #i%ewise, the
reliefs sou)ht in /oth cases are the same, that
is, for Co to deliver the ?<,3 /a)s of cement
or its value to #im. &hat #im utili=ed di*erent
methods of presentin) her case V a criminal
action for estafa and a civil complaint for
speci"c performance and dama)es V should
not detract from the fact that she is attemptin)
to liti)ate the same cause of action twice.?
Co ma%es li)ht of the distinction /etween civil
lia/ilit+ e2 contractu and e2 delicto. Accordin)
to him, )rantin) that the two civil lia/ilities are
independent of each other, nevertheless, the
two cases arisin) from them would have to /e
decided usin) the same evidence and )oin)
over the same set of facts. &hus, an+ ud)ment
rendered in one of these cases will constitute
res udicata on the other.4
In H.9. No. 1<16, Co pra+s for the annulment
of the CA !ecision and 9esolution in CA5H.9. 8P
No. ??-, for a declaration that #im is )uilt+
of forum shoppin), and for the dismissal of Civil
Case No. -5113?6.41
In H.9. No. 1<-3-6, Co pra+s for the a;rmationof the CA !ecision in CA5H.9. CG No. E-1?E
>which dismissed #imYs appeal from the trial
courtYs decision in Criminal Case No. 116?<<@.43
)ily )imHs arguments
#im admits that the two proceedin)s involve
su/stantiall+ the same set of facts /ecause
the+ arose from onl+ one transaction.4? 8he is
quic% to add, however, that a sin)le act or
omission does not alwa+s ma%e a sin)le causeof action.44 It can possi/l+ )ive rise to two
separate civil lia/ilities on the part of the
o*ender V >1@ e2 delicto or civil lia/ilit+ arisin)
from crimes, and >3@ independent civil lia/ilities
or those arisin) from contracts or intentional
torts. &he onl+ caveat provided in Article 31<<
of the Civil Code is that the o*ended part+
cannot recover dama)es twice for the same act
or omission.4- ecause the law allows her two
independent causes of action, #im contends
that it is not forum shoppin) to pursue them.46
8he then e2plains the separate and distinct
causes of action involved in the two cases. er
cause of action in CA5H.9 CG No. E-1?E is
/ased on the crime of estafa. Co violated #imYs
ri)ht to /e protected a)ainst swindlin). e
represented to #im that she can withdraw
?<,3 /a)s of cement usin) the authorities
she /ou)ht from him. &his is a fraudulent
representation /ecause Co %new, at the time
that the+ entered into the contract, that hecould not deliver what he promised.4< 'n the
other hand, #imYs cause of action in Civil Case
No. -5113?6 is /ased on contract. Co
violated #imYs ri)hts as a /u+er in a contract of
sale. Co received pa+ment for the ?<,3 /a)s
of cement /ut did not deliver the )oods that
were the su/ect of the sale.4E
In H.9. No. 1<16, #im pra+s for the denial of
CoYs petition.4 In H.9. No. 1<-3-6, she pra+s
for the reversal of the CA !ecision in CA5H.9.CG No. E-1?E, for a declaration that she is not
)uilt+ of forum shoppin), and for the
reinstatement of her appeal in Criminal Case
No. 116?<< to the CA.-
Issu%
!id #im commit forum shoppin) in "lin) the
civil case for speci"c performance and
dama)es durin) the pendenc+ of her appeal on
the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa
)u0 Ru"#ng
A sin)le act or omission that causes dama)e to
an o*ended part+ ma+ )ive rise to two
separate civil lia/ilities on the part of the
o*ender-1 >1@ civil lia/ilit+ e2 delicto, that is,
civil lia/ilit+ arisin) from the criminal o*ense
under Article 1 of the 9evised Penal Code,−5-3 and >3@ independent civil lia/ilit+, that is, civil
lia/ilit+ that ma+ /e pursued independentl+ of
the criminal proceedin)s. &he independent civil
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 48/49
lia/ilit+ ma+ /e /ased on an o/li)ation not
arisin) from the act or omission complained of
as a felon+, as provided in Article ?1 of the
Civil Code >such as for /reach of contract or for
tort-?@. It ma+ also /e /ased on an act or
omission that ma+ constitute felon+ /ut,
nevertheless, treated independentl+ from the
criminal action /+ speci"c provision of Article
?? of the Civil Code >in cases of defamation,
fraud and ph+sical inuries@.
&he civil lia/ilit+ arisin) from the o*ense or e2
delicto is /ased on the acts or omissions that
constitute the criminal o*ense0 hence, its trial
is inherentl+ intertwined with the criminal
action. For this reason, the civil lia/ilit+ e2
delicto is impliedl+ instituted with the criminal
o*ense.-4 If the action for the civil lia/ilit+ e2
delicto is instituted prior to or su/sequent to
the "lin) of the criminal action, its proceedin)s
are suspended until the "nal outcome of thecriminal action.-- &he civil lia/ilit+ /ased on
delict is e2tin)uished when the court hearin)
the criminal action declares that the act or
omission from which the civil lia/ilit+ ma+ arise
did not e2ist.-6
'n the other hand, the independent civil
lia/ilities are separate from the criminal action
and ma+ /e pursued independentl+, as
provided in Articles ?1 and ?? of the Civil Code,
which state thatB
A9&. ?1. hen the civil action is /ased on an
o/li)ation not arisin) from the act or omission
complained of as a felon+, such civil action
ma+ proceed independentl+ of the criminal
proceedin)s and re)ardless of the result of the
latter. >:mphasis supplied.@
A9&. ??. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
ph+sical inuries a civil action for dama)es,
entirel+ separate and distinct from the criminal
action, ma+ /e /rou)ht /+ the inured part+.
8uch civil action shall proceed independentl+ of
the criminal prosecution, and shall require onl+
a preponderance of evidence. >:mphasis
supplied.@
ecause of the distinct and independent nature
of the two %inds of civil lia/ilities, urisprudence
holds that the o*ended part+ ma+ pursue the
two t+pes of civil lia/ilities simultaneousl+ or
cumulativel+, without o*endin) the rules on
forum shoppin), litis pendentia, or res
1udicata.-< As e2plained in Cancio 9r. v. "sip-E
'ne of the elements of res 1udicata is identit+
of causes of action. In the instant case, it must
/e stressed that the action "led /+ petitioner is
an independent civil action, which remains
separate and distinct from an+ criminal
prosecution /ased on the same act. Not /ein)
deemed instituted in the criminal action /ased
on culpa criminal, a rulin) on the culpa/ilit+ of the o*ender will have no /earin) on said
independent civil action /ased on an entirel+
di*erent cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual.
In the same vein, the "lin) of the collection
case after the dismissal of the estafa cases
a)ainst the o*ender did not amount to forum5
shoppin). &he essence of forum shoppin) is
the "lin) of multiple suits involvin) the same
parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneousl+ or successivel+, to secure afavora/le ud)ment. Althou)h the cases "led
/+ the o*ended part+J arose from the same
act or omission of the o*enderJ, the+ are,
however, /ased on di*erent causes of action.
&he criminal cases for estafa are /ased on
culpa criminal while the civil action for
collection is anchored on culpa contractual.
(oreover, there can /e no forum5shoppin) in
the instant case /ecause the law e2pressl+
allows the "lin) of a separate civil action which
can proceed independentl+ of the criminal
action.-
8ince civil lia/ilities arisin) from felonies and
those arisin) from other sources of o/li)ations
are authori=ed /+ law to proceed
independentl+ of each other, the resolution of
the present issue hin)es on whether the two
cases herein involve di*erent %inds of civil
o/li)ations such that the+ can proceed
independentl+ of each other. &he answer is in
the a;rmative.
&he "rst action is clearl+ a civil action e2
delicto, it havin) /een instituted to)ether with
the criminal action.6
'n the other hand, the second action, ud)in)
/+ the alle)ations contained in the
complaint,61 is a civil action arisin) from a
contractual o/li)ation and for tortious conduct
>a/use of ri)hts@. In her civil complaint, #im
/asicall+ alle)es that she entered into a sale
contract with Co under the followin) termsBthat she /ou)ht ?<,3 /a)s of cement at the
rate of P 64. per /a) from Co0 that, after full
pa+ment, Co delivered to her the withdrawal
authorities issued /+ F9CC correspondin) to
these /a)s of cement0 that these withdrawal
authorities will /e honored /+ F9CC for si2
months from the dates written thereon. #im
then maintains that the defendants /reached
their contractual o/li)ations to her under the
sale contract and under the withdrawal
authorities0 that Co and his co5defendants
wanted her to pa+ more for each /a) of
cement, contrar+ to their a)reement to "2 the
price at P 64. per /a) and to the wordin) of
the withdrawal authorities0 that F9CC did not
honor the terms of the withdrawal authorities it
issued0 and that Co did not compl+ with his
o/li)ation under the sale contract to deliver
the ?<,3 /a)s of cement to #im. From the
fore)oin) alle)ations, it is evident that #im
see%s to enforce the defendantsY contractual
o/li)ations, )iven that she has alread+
performed her o/li)ations. 8he pra+s that the
8/19/2019 Lim v de Leon - Lim v Kou Co Ping
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-v-de-leon-lim-v-kou-co-ping 49/49