NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.

BARTOLOME
CABANGBANG, defendant-appellee.
G.R. No. L-15905 | 1966-08-03
Legislative privilege (parliamentary immunity of speech), scope and limitations
Political Law; Constitutional Law; Legislative Department; Legislative privileges,
inhibitions and disqualifications
DECISION

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

This is an ordinary civil action, originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
for the recovery, by plaintiffs Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban,
of several sums of money, by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous
letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang. Upon being summoned, the latter moved to
dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the letter in question is not libelous, and that,
even if were, said letter is a privileged communication. This motion having been granted
by the lower court, plaintiffs interposed the present appeal from the corresponding order
of dismissal.

The issues before us are: (1) whether the publication in question is a privileged
communication; and, if not, (2) whether it is libelous or not.

The first issue stems from the fact that, at the time of said publication, defendant was a
member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National
Defense, and that pursuant to the Constitution:.

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

The determination of the first issue depends on whether or not the aforementioned
publication falls within the purview of the phrase "speech or debate therein" - that is to
say in Congress - used in this provision.
Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their
official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the
halls of Congress, while the same is in session as well as bills introduced in Congress,
whether the same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either
in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their
duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to
perform its functions as such at the time of the performance of the acts in question. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) Insidious propaganda and rumors spread in such a way as to give the impression
that they reflect the feeling of the people of the opposition parties, to undermine the
administration.

Plan No. II is said to be a "coup d'etat", in connection with which the "planners" had gone
no further than the planning stage, although the plan "seems to be held in abeyance and
subject to future developments".
Plan No. III is characterized as a modification of Plan No. I, by trying to assuage the
President and the public with a loyalty parade, in connection with which Gen. Arellano
delivered a speech challenging the authority and integrity of Congress, and in an effort
to rally the officers and men of the AFP behind him, and gain popular and civilian
support.

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed. It is so ordered.

Footnotes

1. Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil., 192; 43 Off. Gaz., 3597; Tenney vs. Brandhove, 341 U. S.
367; Coffin vs. Coffin 4 Mass. 1.

Case Summary
Jimenez v. Cabangbang
G.R. No. L-15905 | 1966-08-03

Subject:

Privileged Speech (Parliamentary Immunity) , Libel

Facts:

This is an ordinary civil action for damages filed by Jimenez, et. al. against then
Congressman Cabangbang for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter. The letter,
addressed to the then President, is a narration by Cabangbang of an alleged three
operational plan to build up then Secretary Vargas as a presidential candidate. It
involved Jimenez, et. al. as people under the control of or as unaware tools to the said
plan. Jimenez, et. al. alleged that such open letter was written by Cabangbang
knowing the same to be false and with the intent to impeach their reputation, to expose
them to public hatred, contempt, dishonor and ridicule, and to alienate them from their
associates. Cabangbang, on the other hand, moved to dismiss on the ground that the
letter in question is not libelous, and even if it were, such is a privileged
communication.

The issues submitted for resolution are: (1) whether the publication in question is a
privileged communication; and if not, (2) whether it is libelous

Held:

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

2. The publication involved in this case does not qualify as a privileged communication
because at the time the letter was sent, the Congress was not in session,
thus, Cabangbang was not performing his official duty, either as a member of
Congress or as officer or any Committee thereof in causing the communication to be
published.

Libel

3. The very document upon which plaintiffs' action is based explicitly indicates that
they might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operational plans, and that they may
be merely unwitting tools of the planners. The Court did not deem such statement as
derogatory to the plaintiffs, to the point of entitling them to recover damages.
 17 SCRA 876 Political Law Freedom of Speech and Debate
Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman
of its Committee on National Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang caused the
publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said letter alleged that there
have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study by some ambitious
AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists. That such strategists have
had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of Defense, Jesus Vargas, was
planning a coup dtat to place him as the president. The planners allegedly have
Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise and that Jimenez et al may or may
not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet such an end. The letter was
said to have been published in newspapers of general circulation. Jimenez then filed a
case against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages against Cabangbang alleging
that Cabangbangs statement is libelous. Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be
dismissed because he said that as a member of the lower house, he is immune from
suit and that he is covered by the privileged communication rule and that the said letter
is not even libelous.
ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege communication endowed
to members of Congress.
HELD: No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides The Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and
breach of the peace. Be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions
of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or
debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
The publication of the said letter is not covered by said expression which refers to
utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as
speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the
same is in session as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in
session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside
the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of
Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as
such at the time of the performance of the acts in question. Congress was not in session
when the letter was published and at the same time he, himself, caused the publication
of the said letter. It is obvious that, in thus causing the communication to be so published,
he was not performing his official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of
any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by the lower court the said
communication is not absolutely privileged.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang [Aug. 3, 1966]JIMENEZ V CABANGBANG
Aug. 3, 1966

FACTS:
Nicanor Jimenez, Carlos Albert and Jose Lukban they are the persons mentioned in
the open letter of Cabangbang to the President
Bartolome Cabangbang member of the HOR and wrote the letter to the President
A civil action was originally instituted by the petitioners in the CFI of Rizal for recovery
of several sums of money, by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous
letter of defendant Cabangbang. The letter contains information that:
1. There is an insidious plan or a massive political build up
2. There is a planned coup dtat
3. Modified #1, by trying to assuage the President and the public with a loyalty parade,
in a effort to rally the officers and men of the AFP behind General Arellano.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the publication in question is a privileged communication.
2. Whether or not it is libelous.
HELD:
1. It was held that the letter is not considered a privilege communication because the
publication:
a. was an open letter,
b. the Congress was not in session
c. it was not a discharge of an official function or duty
2. It was held not libelous because the letter clearly implies that the plaintiffs were not
the planners but merely tools, much less, unwittingly on their part.
The order appealed is confirmed