G.R. No.

L-26526 May 27, 1974

GAUDENCIO E. ANTONINO, substituted by MAGNOLIA W. ANTONINO, administratrix of his

BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA

Facts

This case arose as an aftermath of the November 1963 local elections when the official candidate of the Liberal
Party (Lorenzo Sarmiento) for governor in Davao lost to the Nacionalista Party standard bearer (Vicente
Duterte), and plaintiff Gaudencio E. Antonino then a senator of the Republic and LP head in that province
attributed the loss of the LP candidate to the support given by defendant Brigido R. Valencia then Secretary of
Public Works and Communications to the independent LP candidate (Constancio Maglana) which divided the
LP votes. In public statements widely quoted in the metropolitan newspapers, plaintiff stated that had not
defendant "sabotaged" and "double-crossed" the LP, its official candidate would have won the election.

On February 28, 1964, while plaintiff was still convalescing in the hospital from a heart attack on January 27,
1964 while attending a Senate session, he filed a formal request with the said Senate committee to investigate
the actions of defendant as Secretary of Public Works and Communications in connection with certain specified
alleged anomalous acquisitions of public works supplies and equipment, as follows: " 1. The purchase by the
department of 100 jeep-rollers costing P1,398,500 from the J.G.R. Enterprises covered by DPWC purchase
order No. A-2563; 2. The purchase of road signs from the Neils Enterprises making available the P8 million
reimbursable funds of the DPWC; 3. The purchase of 250,000 metric tons of cement valued at $3,950,250 (M)
from the Central Trust of China and the sale of such cement to private parties; and

On the same day, March 5, 1964, a two-page press release was issued by the office of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, Exhibit A, and the contents thereof were published or reported on the front pages
of the six metropolitan papers.

Portions of the said published press release are quoted thus: " a) Since Senator Antonino has stubbornly
continued telling lies about me, I have no recourse but start telling the truth about him; b) This is no play of
words and in due time I will file charges against the Senator before the Blue Ribbon Committee for reportedly
anomalous acts that can make him a disgrace to his Senate position; c) . . . for personal selfish reasons, Antonino
had taken advantage of his position as a member of the Monetary Board and even as a Senator; d) Antonino
`had suspicious connections with no less than 22 corporations when he became a member of the Monetary
Board;' e) Is it not the height of abuse of power to threaten an American with deportation and make him cover
from getting a concession because you are a Senator of the Philippines and in the end you get the concession
yourself? and f) I cannot avoid unmasking certain alleged high anomalous activities of the Senator as a member
of the Monetary Board and as a member of the Philippine Senate." 3

Plaintiff then filed on March 23, 1964 the present civil action in the Manila court of first instance for the
recovery against defendant of P1 million as moral damages, P100,000 as exemplary or corrective damages and
P50,000 as litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

Defendant claimed in his answer that he did not issue or cause the publication of the press release; that at any
rate, they were made in good faith and in self-defense and that they were qualifiedly privileged in character. He
sought by way of counterclaim from plaintiff the sum of P1.25 million as moral damages, P100,000 as
exemplary or corrective damages and P50,000 as litigation expense and attorney's fees, which plaintiff
disclaimed in due course as without basis.
After due trial, the lower court ruled against defendant, holding that defendant caused and was liable for the
issuance of the libelous press release and its publication in the papers and rejected his defenses of qualified
privilege and defensive libel

Hence this direct appeal to this Court under the provisions of the Judiciary Act then in force as the amount
involved was more than P200,000 November 13, 1967 on the eve of the 1967 elections. As per the Court's
resolution of March 3, 1969, the motion of Senator Magnolia W. Antonino as administratrix to substitute her
deceased husband as plaintiff-appellee was granted.

Issue : WON the press release is libelous and that it is not protected as a qualified privilege communication.

Ruling Yes, it is libelous and is not protected as qualified

On the question of fact, the Court finds that no error was committed by the trial court in finding that the press
release, Exhibit A, issued by the office of defendant as Secretary of Public Works and Communications was
issued or caused to be issued by him and the contents thereof to be published in the metropolitan press and in
not giving credence to defendant's vague denial and to the vague testimonies of two newsmen Aproniano C.

The preponderance of the evidence of record, documentary and circumstantial, as marshalled by the trial court
in its decision clearly supports its finding of liability on defe

The issues of several Manila newspapers of March 5, 1964, reproduced the specific charges filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant with the Blue Ribbon Committee, which were numbered correlatively

On the upper left corner of Exhibit A was typewritten — `For release' and immediately underneath was the
date —`March 5, 1964'

At the bottom of the first page of Exhibit A appears the following: `Valencia answered point by point, the charges
made ag

The first sentence of the press release indicates the source thereof as the herein defendant, if not directly at
least impliedly

The second paragraph of the press release quoted a statement made by the defendant reading
as follows:

Since Senator Antonino has stubbornly continued telling lies about me, I have no recourse but
start telling the truth about him.

Defendant-appellant raises questions of fact and of law in his brief.

In his second and third assignments of error, defendant claims that the trial court erred in holding that the
press release is libelous and that it is not protected as a qualified privilege communication.

There can be no serious question as to the defamatory and libelous nature of the statements in defendant's
press release which depicted plaintiff as a consistent liar; that he prostituted his high public offices as monetary
board member and senator for personal ends and pecuniary gains; and imputed to him the commission of
certain serious offenses in violation of the Constitution and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.6
As defendant's imputations against plaintiff were not made privately nor officially as to be qualifiedly privilege
under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, the trial court correctly held that by virtue of their defamatory
and libelous nature against the honor, integrity and reputation of plaintiff, malice in law was presumed. 7 It
further correctly ruled that defendant had not overcome such presumption of malice, not having shown the
truth thereof, or that they were published with good intentions and with justifiable motive or even from the
most liberal standpoint that they were made in the exercise of the right of fair comment on the character, good
faith, ability and sincerity of public officials.

The trial court aptly observed that "(A)t the time of the publication of the defamatory imputation, the plaintiff
was not a candidate for any public office there being no election to be held and his term of office as Senator
would not expire until several years more. As a member of the Senate of the Philippines, he was answerable to
said body for any misconduct committed as a Senator because it had the authority to take disciplinary action
against any member thereof. Had the defendant been prompted by a sense of duty, and not because of malice, the
charge at least with respect to the alleged threat made against an American, should have been filed with the
Senate or any of its Committees. The defendant did not do so but instead made the accusations publicly by
causing them to be given widest publication by all the metropolitan newspapers, obviously in retaliation to the
charge filed against him by the plaintiff with the Blue Ribbon. Committee of the Senate."8

The trial court likewise properly rejected defendant-appellant's claim of defensive libel thus: "(S)tress had also
been laid by the defendant on the argument that he had been libeled by the plaintiff and accordingly the former
was justified to hit back with another libel. The emphasis laid had been misplaced and based upon a wrong
premise. The defendant was charged with the commission of certain anomalous transactions in his capacity as
Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the same were filed with the Investigation Committee (Blue
Ribbon) of the Senate of the Philippines and the Commission on Appointments. Accordingly, the said charges,
even assuming that they contain defamatory imputation, would not be libelous because the letter sent by the
plaintiff was a privileged communication."