Corpo Cases 1.docx

7/25/2019 Corpo Cases 1.docx

1/13

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 84132-33 : December 10, 1990.]

192 SCRA 25

NA!"#NA$ DE%E$#&'EN! C#'&AN( AND NE) AGR"*,

"NC., Petitioners, +s. &"$"&&"NE %E!ERANS BAN, !E

E*-#"C"# SER" / G#D#RED# "$"NG, s

c/6/c7 /s De67 Ser o C/;/mb/, $/, when President Marcos was the

absolute ruler of this country and his decrees were the absolu$ny 9udicial challenge to them would have been futile, notfoolhardy. The private respondent, no less than the rest of thewas aware of that reality and knew it had no choice undcircumstances but to conform. : nad

It is true that there were a few venturesome souls who dquestion the dictator?s decisions before the courts of 9usticThe record will show, however, that not a single act or issuPresident Marcos was ever declared unconstitutional, not ethe highest court, as long as he was in power. To rule now private respondent is estopped for having abided with theinstead of boldly assailing it is to close our eyes to a cynicallife during that repressive time.

This case must be distinguished from Mendoa, whpetitioners, after filing their claims with the $&I/ 'ommittee, received in settlement thereof shares of stock vaP*>,>>>.>> without protest or reservation. The herein respondent has not been paid a single centavo on its claimwas kept pending for more than seven years for alleged supporting papers. )ignificantly, the validity of that claim wquestioned by the petitioner when it sought to restre%tra9udicial foreclosure of the mortgage by the private respThe petitioner limited itself to the argument that the

respondent was estopped from questioning the decree becausearlier compliance with its provisions.

Independently of these observations, there is the consideratan affront to the 'onstitution cannot be allowed to continue esimply because of procedural inhibitions that e%alt formsubstance.

The 'ourt is especially disturbed by )ection *+" of the quoted above, e%tinguishing all mortgages and other liens atto the assets of $&I/. It also notes, with equal concerestriction in )ubsection +ii thereof that all -unsecured oblshall not bear interest- and in )ubsection +iii that -all ainterests, penalties or charges as of date hereof pertainingobligations, whether secured or unsecured, shall not be recog

These provisions must be read with the 1ill of ights, wheclearly provided in )ection " that -no person shall be deprlife, liberty or property without due course of law nor shperson be denied the equal protec tion of the law- and in )ecthat -no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be pas

In defending the decree, the petitioners argue that propertylike all rights, are sub9ect to regulation under the police po


2/13

the promotion of the common welfare. The contention is that thisinherent power of the state may be e%ercised at any time for thispurpose so long as the taking of the property right, even if based oncontract, is done with due process of law.

This argument is an overAsimplification of the problem before us.The police power is not a panacea for all constitutional maladies.!either does its mere invocation con9ure an instant and automatic9ustification for every act of the government depriving a person ofhis life, liberty or property.

$ legislative act based on the police power requires the concurrenceof a lawful sub9ect and a lawful method. In more familiar words, athe interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of aparticular class, should 9ustify the interference of the state; and bthe means employed are reasonably necessary for theaccomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive uponindividuals. ,>>>,>>>.>> $gri%, Inc. Pending payment thereof, !' would undertmanagement of the corporation, but with the obligation of periodic reports to the $gri% board of directo rs. $fter paymenloan, the said board can then appoint its own managemestocks of the new corporation are to be issued to the old inand stockholders of $&I/ upon proof of their claims agaabolished corporation. They shall then be the owners of tcorporation. !ew $gri%, Inc. is entirely private and so shoubeen organied under the 'orporation 6aw in accordance waboveAcited constitutional provision.

The 'ourt also feels that the decree impairs the obligationcontract between $&I/ and the private respondent 9ustification. Chile it is true that the police power is superioimpairment clause, the principle will apply only where the cis so related to the public welfare that it will be concongenitally susceptible to change by the legislature in the of the greater number. D Most presentAday contracts are nature. 1ut as already observed, the contracts of loan and me%ecuted by $&I/ are purely private transactions and hbeen shown to be affected with public interest. There was thno warrant to amend their provisions and deprive the

respondent of its vested property rights.It is worth noting that only recently in the case of the evel1ank of the Philippines v. !6', E we sustained the preferpayment of a mortgage creditor as against the argument tclaims of laborers should take precedence over all other including those of the government. In arriving at this ruli'ourt recognied the mortgage lien as a property right protethe due process and contract clauses notwithstanding the arthat the amendment in )ection ""> of the 6abor 'ode was ae%ercise of the police power. : nad

The 'ourt reaffirms and applies that ruling in the case at bar.

=ur finding, in sum, is that Pres. ecree !o. "#"# is an e%ercise of the police power, not being in conformity w

traditional requirements of a lawful sub9ect and a lawful mThe e%tinction of the mortgage and other liens and of the and other charges pertaining to the legitimate creditors of $constitutes taking without due process of law, and compounded by the reduction of the secured creditors category of unsecured creditors in violation of the equal proclause. Moreover, the new corporation, being neither own


3/13

controlled by the &overnment, should have been created only bygeneral and not special law. $nd insofar as the decree also interfereswith purely private agreements without any demonstratedconnection with the public interest, there is likewise an impairmentof the obligation of the contract.

Cith the above pronouncements, we feel there is no more need torule on the authority of President Marcos to promulgate Pres. ecree!o. "#"# under $mendment !o. E of the "3#5 'onstitution. (ven ifhe had such authority, the decree must fall 9ust the same because ofits violation of the 1ill of ights.

CB((8=(, the petition is I)MI))(. Pres. ecree !o. "#"#is declared @!'=!)TIT@TI=!$6. The temporary restrainingorder dated $ugust 5>, "344, is 6I8T(. 'osts against thepetitioners. A nad

)= =((.

Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Gancayco Padilla,

Bidin, Sariento, Gri!o"#$uino, %edialdea and Re&alado, JJ.,

concur.

%elencio"'errera, J., n te result. n *ulao v. C+%-C, /

SCR# 01 (234), a portion o5 te second para&rap o5 section 6

o5 Batas Pa7ansa Bl&. /1 8as declared null and void 5or 7ein&

unconstitutional.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

8I)T I0I)I=!

[G.R. No. 128>90. ?//r 21, 1999]

ABS-CBN BR#ADCAS!"NG C#RRA!"#N,petitioners,vs. #N#RAB$E C#R! # A&&EA$S, RE&B$"C BR#ADCAS!"NG

C#R&., %"%A &R#DC!"#NS, "NC., / %"CEN!E DE$R#SAR"#, respondents.

D E C " S " # N

DA%"DE, ?R., C.J.:

In this pet it ion for review on certiorari, petitioners $1)A'1!1roadcasting 'orp. +hereinafter $1)A'1! seeks to reverse and set aside the

decisionF"G

of 5" =ctober "33E and the resolutionF, in 'ivil 'ase !o. HA"3. The latter denied themotion to reconsider the decision of 5" =ctober "33E.

The antecedents, as found by the T' and adopted by the 'ourt of $ppeals, areas follows:

In "33>, $1)A'1! and 0I0$ e%ecuted a 8ilm (%hibition $greement +(%h. $whereby 0iva gave $1)A'1! an e%clusive right to e%hibit some 0ivafilms. )ometime in ecember "33", in accordance with paragraph titles we canpurchase. Please see attached. I hope you will understand my position. Most of

the action pictures in the list do not have big action stars in the cast. They are notfor primetime. In line with this I wish to mention that I have not scheduled fortelecast several action pictures in our very first contract because of the cheapproduction value of these movies as well as the lack of big action stars. $s a filmproducer, I am sure you understand what I am trying to say as 0iva producesonly big action pictures.

In fact, I would like to request two + titles I have choosen FsicG from the 5 packages please including all the other 0iva movies produced last year, I have quite an aoffer to make.

Thanking you and with my warmest regards.

+)igned

'haro )antosA'oncio

=n 8ebruary ,>>>,>>which P5>,>>>,>>>.>> will be in cash and P5>,>>>,>>>.>> worth of tespots +(%h. * to *A' 0iva; 3 0iva.

=n $pril E, "33


4/13

=n $pril G1) also set up a crossAclaim against 0I0$.

=n 5 $ugust "33>,>>>.>>.

=n the other hand, respondent 'ourt of $ppeals denied 0I0$ and el appeal because it was 1) and not 0I0$ which was actually pre9udicthe complaint was filed by $1)A'1!.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128690.htm#_edn22


5/13

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, $1)A'1! filed the petitionin this case, contending that the 'ourt of $ppeals gravely erred in

"

@6I!& TB$T TB(( C$) != P(8('T( '=!T$'T 1(TC((!P (TITI=!( $! PI0$T( ()P=!(!T 0I0$!=TCITB)T$!I!& P(P=!8($!'( =8 (0I(!'( $@'( 1KP(TITI=!( T= TB( '=!T$K.

""

I! $C$I!& $'T@$6 $! '=MP(!)$T=K $M$&() I! 8$0==8 PI0$T( ()P=!(!T 1).

"""

I! $C$I!& M=$6 $! (/(MP6$K $M$&() I! 8$0= =8PI0$T( ()P=!(!T 1).

"%

I! $C$I!& $T=!(K) 8(() =8 1).

$1)A'1! claims that it had yet to fully e%ercise its right of first refusal overtwentyAfour titles under the "33> 8ilm (%hibition $greement, as it had chosenonly ten titles from the first list.It insists that we give credence to 6opestestimony that he and el osario met at the Tamarind &rill estaurant,discussed the terms and conditions of the second list +the "33< 8ilm (%hibition$greement and upon agreement thereon, wrote the same on a paper napkin. Italso asserts that the contract has already been effective, as the elements thereof,namely, consent, ob9ect, and consideration were established. It then concludesthat the 'ourt of $ppeals pronouncements were not supported by law and

9urisprudence, as per our decision of " ecember "33D in 6imketkai )onsMilling, Inc. v. 'ourt of $ppeals, F


6/13

+b perfection or birth of the contract, which is the moment when the partiescome to agree on the terms of the contract; and

+c consummation or death, which is the fulfillment or performance of the termsagreed upon in the contract. F53G

'ontracts that are consensual in nature are perfected upon mere meeting of theminds. =nce there is concurrence between the offer and the acceptance upon thesub9ect matter, consideration, and terms of payment a contract is produced. Theoffer must be certain. To convert the offer into a contract, the acceptance must beabsolute and must not qualify the terms of the offer; it must be plain,unequivocal, unconditional, and without variance of any sort from theproposal. $ qualified acceptance, or one that involves a new proposal,constitutes a counterAoffer and is a re9ection of the original offer. 'onsequently,when something is desired which is not e%actly what is proposed in the offer,such acceptance is not sufficient to generate consent because any modification orvariation from the terms of the offer annuls the offer. F*>G

Chen Mr. el osario of 0iva met Mr. 6ope of $1)A'1! at the Tamarind&rill on < $pril "33< to discuss the package of films, said package of ">* 0I0$films was 0I0$s offer to $1)A'1! to enter into a new 8ilm (%hibition$greement. 1ut $1)A'1!, sent through Ms. 'oncio, counterAproposal in theform a draft contract proposing e%hibition of D5 films for a consideration of P5Dmillion. This counterAproposal could be nothing less than the counterAoffer ofMr. 6ope during his conference with el osario at Tamarind &rillestaurant. 'learly, there was no acceptance of 0I0$s offer, for it was met by acounterAoffer which substantially varied the terms of the offer.

$1)A'1!s reliance in 6imketkai )ons Milling, Inc. v. 'ourt of$ppealsF*"Gand Villonco Realty Company v. Bormaheco, Inc.,F*,>>>.>> as wel l as grant 0iva commercia l slotsworth P"3,3D>,>>>.>>. Ce had already earmarked this P"E,>D>,>>>.>>.

which gives a total consideration of P5E million +P"3,3D",>>>.>>plus P"E,>D>,>>>.>> equals P5E,>>>,>>>.>>.

=n crossAe%amination Mr. 6ope testified:

H Chat was written in this napkinL

$ The total price, the breakdown the known 0iva movies, the # blockbustermovies and the other # 0iva movies because the price was broken downaccordingly. The none FsicG 0iva and the seven other 0iva movies and thesharing between the cash portion and the concerned spot portion in the totalamount of P5D million pesos.

!ow, which is whichL P5E million or P5D millionL This weakens $1)A'1!sclaim.

8=@TB. Mrs. 'oncio, testifying for $1)A'1! stated that she tra(%hibit ' to Mr. el osario with a handwritten note, describing said (as a draft. +(%h. D 0iva; tsn pp. ; $rnold vs. Cillets and Paterson, ** Phil. E5*. $s a mere agent, reas such by plaintiff, el osario could not be held liable 9ointly and s

with 0iva and his inclusion as party defendant has no legal basis. +)aCarner 1arnes FsicG,'=6T$, 44 Phil. "


7/13

ripen into a valid binding upon 0iva +Kao a )in Trading vs. 'ourt of $ppeals,3 )'$ #E5.The evidence adduced shows that the 1oard of irectors of0iva re9ected (%hibit ' and insisted that the film package for ">* films bemaintained +(%h. #A" 'ica.F*3G

The contention that $1)A'1! had yet to fully e%ercise its right of first refusalover twentyAfour films under the "33> 8ilm (%hibition $greement and that themeeting between 6ope and el osario was a continuation of said previouscontract is untenable. $s observed by the trial court, $1)A'1!s right of firstrefusal had already been e%ercised when Ms. 'oncio wrote to 0iva ticking offten films. Thus:

FTGhe subsequent negotiation with $1)A'1! two +. (ven Mr. 6ope himself admitted that theright of first refusal may have been already e%ercised by Ms. 'oncio +as shehad. +T)!, 2une 4, "33


8/13

S# #RDERED.

Melo, Kapunan, Martine), and'ardo, **., concur.

)('=! I0I)I=!

[G.R. No. 1280>>. ?e 19, 2000]

?ARD"NE DA%"ES "NC., petitioner, vs . C#R! # A&&EA$S / AREAS! '"$$S S&&$( C#RRA!"#N, respondents.

[G.R. No. 1280>9 ?e 19, 2000]

&RE ##DS C#RRA!"#N, petitioner, vs.C#R! # A&&EA$S /AR EAS! '"$$S S&&$( C#RRA!"#N, respondents.

D E C " S " # N

BE$$#S"$$#,J.:

This is rather a simple case for specific performance with damages which couldhave been resolved through mediation and conciliation during its infancy stagehad the parties been earnest in e%pediting the disposal of this case. They optedhowever to resort to full court proceedings and denied themselves the benefits ofalternative dispute resolution, thus making the process more arduous and longAdrawn.

The controversy started in "33< at the height of the power crisis which thecountry was then e%periencing. To remedy and curtail further losses due to theseries of power failures, petitioner P@( 8==) '=P=$TI=! +hereafterP@(8==) decided to install two +>>.>>

or its peso equivalent, and P3>>,>>>.>> representing contractor?s mainstallation work, considering that it would be impossible toP@(8==) to honor, perform and fulfill its contractual obligations inP@(8==?s contract with 2$I!( and noting that construction hastarted thereon; +c to pay attorneys fees in an amount equivalent to total amount due; and, +d to pay the costs. The trial court dismcounterclaim filed by P@(8==) for lack of factual and legal basis.

1oth 8(M)'= and P@(8==) appealed to the 'ourt of $ppeals. 8appealed the >>,>>>.>> as e%emplary damages as well as ofamount due as attorney?s fees.

=n 5" 2anuary "33# the 'ourt of $ppeals denied for lack of merit the motions for reconsideration filed by P@(8==) and 2$I!(. Bentwo +


9/13

of the contract; and, +c cause of the obligation which is established. FDG$ contractbinds both contracting parties and has the force of law between them.

'ontracts are perfected by mere consent, upon the acceptance by the offeree ofthe offer made by the offeror. 8rom that moment, the parties are bound not onlyto the fulfillment of what has been e%pressly stipulated but also to all theconsequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with goodfaith, usage and law.FEGTo produce a contract, the acceptance must not qualify theterms of the offer. Bowever, the acceptance may be e%press or implied. F#G8or acontract to arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror.$ccordingly, the acceptance can be withdrawn or revoked before it is madeknown to the offeror.

In the instant case, there is no issue as regards the sub9ect matter of the contract

and the cause of the obligation. The controversy lies in the consent A whetherthere was an acceptance of the offer, and if so, if it was communicated, therebyperfecting the contract.

To resolve the dispute, there is a need to determine what constituted the offerand the acceptance. )ince petitioner P@(8==) started the process ofentering into the contract by conducting a bidding, $rt. "5


10/13

egional Trial 'ourt of 6egapi 'ity, 1ranch ">, in 'ivil 'ase !o. 4. Huoted areportions of the allegedly libelous broadcasts:

?N A$EGRE:

6et us begin with the less burdensome: o /+e c;re 7/< mec/;corse /7 A'EC-BCC', /+se 7em 7o 6/ss /;; sbec7s bec/se 7e /;

/ sbec7 7e ;; re6e/7 7er e/r ;e+e;, 7/< 6 /;; sbec7s

c;< 7ose 7e /+e 6/sse /;re/ . )everal students had approached mestating that they had consulted with the (') which told them that there is nosuch regulation. If FthereG is no such regulation why is $M(' doing the sameL

%%%

)econd: E/r;er A'EC s7e7s &sc/; !er/6 / com6;/e 7/77e corse s o7 reco


11/13

Bence, 81!I filed this petition.F"DG

!e R;< o 7e Cor7 o A66e/;s

The 'ourt of $ppeals upheld the trial courts ruling that the questionedbroadcasts are libelousper seand that 81!I, ima and $legre failed toovercome the legal presumption of malice. The 'ourt of $ppeals found imaand $legres claim that they were actuated by their moral and social duty toinform the public of the students gripes as insufficient to 9ustify the utterance ofthe defamatory remarks.

8inding no factual basis for the imputations against $M('s administrators, the'ourt of $ppeals ruled that the broadcasts were made with reckless disregard asto whether they were true or false. The appellate court pointed out that 81!I,

ima and $legre failed to present in court any of the students who allegedlycomplained against $M('. ima and $legre merely gave a single name whenasked to identify the students. $ccording to the 'ourt of $ppeals, thesecircumstances cast doubt on the veracity of the broadcasters claim that they wereimpelled by their moral and social duty to inform the public about the studentsgripes.

The 'ourt of $ppeals found ima also liable for libel since he remarked that +"$M('A1''M is a dumping ground for morally and physically misfit teachers;+


12/13

The allegation that plaintiff was getting tremendous aids from foreignfoundations like Mcdonald 8oundation prove not to be true also. The truth isthere is no Mcdonald 8oundation e%isting. $lthough a big building of plaintiffschool was given the name Mcdonald building, that was only in order to honorthe first missionary in 1icol of plaintiffs religion, as e%plained by r. 6ita $go.'ontrary to the claim of defendants over the air, not a single centavo appears tobe received by plaintiff school from the aforementioned Mconald 8oundationwhich does not e%ist.

efendants did not even also bother to prove their claim, though denied by ra.$go, that when medical students fail in one sub9ect, they are made to repeat allthe other sub9ectFsG, even those they have already passed, nor their claim that theschool charges laboratory fees even if there are no laboratories in the school. !o

evidence was presented to prove the bases for these claims, at least in order togive semblance of good faith.

$s for the allegation that plaintiff is the dumping ground for misfits, andimmoral teachers, defendantFsG singled out ean 2ustita 6ola who is said to be soold, with ero visibility already. ean 6ola testified in court last 2an. >,>>> to P"D>,>>>.

.

9eter te a8ard o5 attorneys 5ees is proper

81!I contends that since $M(' is not entitled to moral damages, there is nobasis for the award of attorneys fees. 81!I adds that the instant case does notfall under the enumeration in $rticle


13/13

television may be had from the oer o 7e s7/7o, a licensee, 7eo6er/7or o7e s7/7o, or a person who procures, or participates in, the making of thedefamatory statements.FD*G$n employer and employee are solidarily liable for adefamatory statement by the employee within the course and scope of his or heremployment, at least when the employer authories or ratifies the defamation.FDDGIn this case, ima and $legre were clearly performing their official duties ashosts of 81!Is radio program (%pos when they aired the broadcasts. 81!Ineither alleged nor proved that ima and $legre went beyond the scope of theirwork at that time. There was likewise no showing that 81!I did not authorieand ratify the defamatory broadcasts.

Moreover, there is insufficient evidence on record that 81!I e%ercised duediligence in the se;ec7o ands6er+soof its employees, particularly imaand $legre. 81!I merely showed that it e%ercised diligence in the se;ec7oofits broadcasters without introducing any evidence to prove that it observed thesame diligence in the s6er+soof ima and $legre. 81!I did not show how ite%ercised diligence in supervising its broadcasters. 81!Is alleged constantreminder to its broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and ob9ectivity and torefrain from using libelous and indecent language is not enough to prove duediligence in the supervision of its broadcasters. $dequate training of thebroadcasters on the industrys code of conduct, sufficient information on libellaws, and continuous evaluation of the broadcasters performance are but a few ofthe many ways of showing diligence in the supervision of broadcasters.

81!I claims that it has taken all the precaution in the se;ec7oof ima and$legre as broadcasters, bearing in mind their qualifications. Bowever, no clearand convincing evidence shows that ima and $legre underwent 81!Isregimented process of application. 8urthermore, 81!I admits that ima and$legre had deficiencies in their 1P accreditation ,FDEGwhich is one of 81!Isrequirements before it hires a broadcaster. )ignificantly, membership in the 1P,while voluntary, indicates the broadcasters strong commitment to observe the

broadcast industrys rules and regulations. 'learly, these circumstances show81!Is lack of diligence in selecting andsupervising ima and $legre. Bence,81!I is solidarily liable to pay damages together with ima and $legre.

)ERE#RE, we (!K the instant petition. Ce $88IM the ecision of *2anuary "333 and esolution of > of the 'ourt of $ppeals in '$A&.. '0 !o. *>"D" with the M=I8I'$TI=! that the award of moral damagesis reduced from P5>>,>>> to P"D>,>>> and the award of attorneys fees is deleted.'osts against petitioner.

S# #RDERED.

&roesso/; Ser+ces, "c. %. N/7+/ A ErFe A

Documents

Corpo Cases 1.docx