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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 367 views

    People'S Journal Et. Al. vs. Francis Thoenen

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Mae Ogao-ogao
    1) A news article in People's Journal claimed that Francis Thoenen, a Swiss national, shoots neighborhood pets that enter his property and that residents requested his deportation to prevent future incidents. 2) Thoenen sued for damages, claiming the article destroyed his reputation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, libel is not, and the news article contained falsehoods by claiming residents requested deportation and events reported never occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    People'S Journal Et. Al. vs. Francis Thoenen

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Mae Ogao-ogao
    367 views2 pages
    1) A news article in People's Journal claimed that Francis Thoenen, a Swiss national, shoots neighborhood pets that enter his property and that residents requested his deportation to prevent future incidents. 2) Thoenen sued for damages, claiming the article destroyed his reputation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, libel is not, and the news article contained falsehoods by claiming residents requested deportation and events reported never occurred.

    Original Title

    3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A news article in People's Journal claimed that Francis Thoenen, a Swiss national, shoots neighborhood pets that enter his property and that residents requested his deportation to prevent future incidents. 2) Thoenen sued for damages, claiming the article destroyed his reputation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, libel is not, and the news article contained falsehoods by claiming residents requested deportation and events reported never occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    People'S Journal Et. Al. vs. Francis Thoenen

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Mae Ogao-ogao
    1) A news article in People's Journal claimed that Francis Thoenen, a Swiss national, shoots neighborhood pets that enter his property and that residents requested his deportation to prevent future incidents. 2) Thoenen sued for damages, claiming the article destroyed his reputation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, libel is not, and the news article contained falsehoods by claiming residents requested deportation and events reported never occurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PEOPLE’S JOURNAL et. al. vs.

    FRANCIS THOENEN
    December 13, 2005, G.R. No. 143372

    Facts:
    Petitioners: Philippine Journalists, Inc. (People’s Journal), Zacarias Nuguid, Jr.
    and Cristina Lee,
    Respondent: Francis Thoenen

    On 30 September 1990, a news item appeared in the People’s Journal claiming


    that a certain Francis Thoenen, a Swiss national who allegedly shoots wayward
    neighbors’ pets that he finds in his domain. It also claimed that BF Homes residents, in
    a letter through lawyer Atty. Efren Angara, requested for the deportation of Thoenen to
    prevent the recurrence of such incident in the future. Thoenen claimed that the article
    destroyed the respect and admiration he enjoyed in the community. He is seeking for
    damages. The petitioners admitted publication of the news item, ostensibly out of a
    “social and moral duty to inform the public on matters of general interest, promote the
    public good and protect the moral public of the people,” and that the story was
    published in good faith and without malice.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the news report fall under privileged communication and therefore
    protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of speech.

    Decision:
    No. The right of free speech is not absolute. Libel is not protected speech. In the
    instant case, even if we assume that the letter written by Atty. Angara is privileged
    communication, it lost its character when the matter was published in the newspaper
    and circulated among the general population, especially since the individual alleged to
    be defamed is neither a public official nor a public figure.

    Moreover, the news item contained falsehoods on two levels. First, the BF
    Homes residents did not ask for the deportation of Thoenen, more so because the letter
    of the Atty. Anagara was a mere request for verification of Thoenen’s status as a foreign
    resident. The article is also untrue because the events she reported never happened.
    Worse, the main source of information, Atty. Efren Angara, apparently either does not
    exist, or is not a lawyer.

    There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional


    lie nor the careless error materially advances society’s interest in ‘uninhibited, robust,
    and wide-open’ debate. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which
    “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a
    step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
    social interest in order and morality. The knowingly false statement and the false
    statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional
    protection”

    You might also like