8/13/2019 Customs vs Tulfo

1/2

Attorney Ding So of the Bureau of Customs,petitioner vs. Erwin Tulfo,

GR Nos. 161032 and 161176, September 2008

Facts

In the column entitled Direct Hit published in the daily tabloid Remate, the said

column was accusing Atty. Ding So of the Bureau of Customs of corruption. On the

published article Atty. So was portrayed as an extortionist and a smuggler.

Atty.Ding So of the Bureau of Customs filed a libel suit in four separate information

against Erwin Tulfo, Susan Cambri, Rey Salao, Jocelyn Barlizo, and Philip Pichay of

Remate.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Tulfo guilty of libel. The CA affirmed the

decision.

ISSUES

Whether or not Tulfo is guilty of false and malicious imputations in his column in

Remate.Whether or not the assailed articles are privileged.Whether or not the assailed articles are fair commentaries.

Ruling of the Case:1. YES, For the ruling in Borjal case was not applied to this libel case:

a. The case was based on a criminal case.b. There was sufficient identification of the complainant.c. The subject was not a private citizen, in this case, the subject is a public

official.

d. In this case it is not in the scope of fair commentaries on matters of publicinterest.

2. NO. The columns were mere trivialized and editorialized, the columns dont have

evidences to substantiate the claims and attacks to Atty. So. The articles cannot be

privileged simply because the target was a public official.

a. Tulfo made no effort to verify the information given by his source or even toascertain the identity of the person he was accusing.

b. Tulfo abandoned the consistent with good faith and reasonable care whenhe wrote the subject articles. This is no case of mere error or honest mistake,

but a case of a journalist abdicating his responsibility to verify his story and

instead misinforming the public.

8/13/2019 Customs vs Tulfo

2/2

c. Tulfo had written and published the articles with reckless disregard ofwhether the same were false or not.

d. Evidence of malice: The fact that Tulfo continuously published articleslambasting Atty. So after the commencement of an action. This is a clear

indication of his intent to malign Atty. So, no matter the cost, and is proof of

malice.

3. No. Tulfo failed to substantiate or even attempt to verify his story before

publication. Moreover, he added facts based on his standards of veracity

a. The absence of details of the acts committed by the subject. These are plainand simple and mere gossip accusations, backed up bythe word of one

unnamed source.Journalists do not rely on fictions instead on truth. There must

be some foundation to their reports; these reports must be warranted by facts.

b. The columns of Tulfo are not fair and true. Tulfo failed to do research beforemaking his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations werebaseless.

Velasco, Jr., J:Elements of fair commentary (to be considered privileged):1.That it is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official

proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of a statement, report, or

speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a

public officer in the exercise of his functions;

2.That it is made in good faith;3.That it is without any comments or remarks.