Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    18 Jimenez v. Cabangbang

    Uploaded by

    zee
    The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a letter written by Congressman Cabangbang characterizing the plaintiffs was not libelous. The letter stated the plaintiffs may have been unwitting tools in a plan to promote Defense Secretary Vargas' presidential ambitions. While not covered by speech and debate privilege since Congress was not in session, the letter's contents - that plaintiffs' involvement may have been unwitting - were not inconsistent with the plaintiffs' libel allegation that the letter falsely impeached their reputation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' case for damages failed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    18 Jimenez v. Cabangbang

    Uploaded by

    zee
    73 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a letter written by Congressman Cabangbang characterizing the plaintiffs was not libelous. The letter stated the plaintiffs may have been unwitting tools in a plan to promote Defense Secretary Vargas' presidential ambitions. While not covered by speech and debate privilege since Congress was not in session, the letter's contents - that plaintiffs' involvement may have been unwitting - were not inconsistent with the plaintiffs' libel allegation that the letter falsely impeached their reputation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' case for damages failed.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a letter written by Congressman Cabangbang characterizing the plaintiffs was not libelous. The letter stated the plaintiffs may have been unwitting tools in a plan to promote Defense Secretary Vargas' presidential ambitions. While not covered by speech and debate privilege since Congress was not in session, the letter's contents - that plaintiffs' involvement may have been unwitting - were not inconsistent with the plaintiffs' libel allegation that the letter falsely impeached their reputation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' case for damages failed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    73 views2 pages

    18 Jimenez v. Cabangbang

    Uploaded by

    zee
    The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a letter written by Congressman Cabangbang characterizing the plaintiffs was not libelous. The letter stated the plaintiffs may have been unwitting tools in a plan to promote Defense Secretary Vargas' presidential ambitions. While not covered by speech and debate privilege since Congress was not in session, the letter's contents - that plaintiffs' involvement may have been unwitting - were not inconsistent with the plaintiffs' libel allegation that the letter falsely impeached their reputation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' case for damages failed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    JABF D2022
    NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL. , plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BARTOLOME
    Case Name
    CABANGBANG, defendant-appellee
    Topic Speech and Debate Clause
    Case No. | Date GR No. L-15905, Aug 3, 1966
    Ponente Concepcion, CJ
    A letter by HRep National Defense committee Chairman Cabangbang to the President
    characterized plaintiffs as “unwittingly tools of the Plan of which they may have absolutely no
    knowledge.” Said plan is to glamorize Defense Secretary Vargas in pursuant to a possible
    Case Summary
    presidential run and a plan of coup d’ etat.

    The SC upheld the ruling of the CA that said communication is not libellous.
    Imputations of falsehood and malice cannot be upheld if they are inconsistent with the contents
    Doctrine of the letter.
    Article VI, Section 15, 1987 Constitution

    RELEVANT FACTS

    Petitioners filed a case for 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.

    According to the letter sent by Cabangbang, who was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of
    its Committee on National Defense, there are three operational plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP
    officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists."

    The goal is to glamorize 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"

    Plan I: Speaking engagements and news releases aimed at not only establishing Vargas as the enemy number 1 of
    Communists but also to undermine the administration by making it seem that there are negative sentiments among
    the people against the administration.

    Plan II: Coup d’ etat

    Plan III: A loyalty parade to assuage the public and 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 sent to the President characterized petitioners as unwittingly tools of the Plan of which they may have
    absolutely no knowledge.

    Plaintiffs allege that defendant sent the letter to the president and caused the publication thereof to newspapers
    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.
    University of the Philippines College of Law
    JABF D2022
    RATIO DECIDENDI
    Issue Ratio
    W/N questioned No. The Congress was not in session when said communication was sent.
    communication is
    privileged Art VI Sec. 15 provides that speeches and debates done by members of Congress in the
    performance of their duty shall be privileged. However, the questioned letter was sent
    while Congress was not in session.

    Also, it cannot be privileged because it was published in newspapers on the initiative of


    Cabangbang not in the performance of duty.
    W/N questioned No. The letter in question is not sufficient to support plaintiffs' action for damages.
    communication is
    libelous 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"

    Allegations of hatred, contempt and attempt to dishonour are not consistent with the
    contents of the letter as it explicitly states that they may be are unwitting tools of the
    planners and that they may have no knowledge of the plan.

    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'état or
    that they were knowingly tools of the "planners".

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

    SEPARATE OPINIONS

    NOTES
    "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.)

    You might also like