HEIRS OF SIMEON BORLADO, namely, ADELAIDA BORLADO, LORETO BORLADO, REY-NALDO BORLADO, RICARDO BORLADO, FRANCISCO BORLADO and ALADINO DO-RADO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and SALVACION VDA. DE BULAN, BIEN-VENIDO BULAN, JR., NORMA B. CLARITO and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CAPIZ, re-spondents.

FACTS:The records show that plaintiffs-appellants (petitioners) are the heirs of Simeon Borlado whose par-ents were Serapio Borlado and Balbina Bulan. The original owner of the lot in question, Lot No. 2097 of the Pontevedra Cadastre, Maayon, Capiz, was Serapio Borlado, grandfather of petitioners.

On 15 April 1942, Serapio sold the lot to Francisco Bacero for Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00). Af-ter the death of Francsico on 26 February 1948, his widow Amparo Dionisio Vda. de Bacero, in her capacity as legal guardian of her minor children, namely: Nicolas, Valentin and Luzviminda, all surnamed Bacero and forced heirs of Francisco Bacero sold it (the lot) to the Spouses Bienvenido Bulan and Salvacion Borbon, through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 August 1954.

Upon the execution of the Deed of Sale and even prior thereto, actual possession of Lot No. 2057 was with the vendees-spouses Bulans in view of a loan obtained by Francisco Bacero from them in December 1947. Exercising their right of ownership under the Deed of Sale, Salvacion Borbon Vda. de Bulan declared the lot in her name in 1900 for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 2232. She paid the corresponding taxes as evidenced by the Tax Receipts, and her co-defendants-appellees possession of the lot was continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted, adverse and exclusive until November 4, 1972, when petitioners forcibly entered and wrested physical possession thereof from them.

On 23 November 1972, respondents filed with the Municipal Court of Maayon, Capiz a complaint for ejectment. The ejectment case was decided in favor of the respondents whereby the petitioners, their agents, tenants, privies and members of their families were ordered to vacate Lot No. 2079 and deliver possession to the respondents together with all improvements and standing crops; to pay said respondents One Hundred (100) cavans of palay annually from 1972 to the present or in the total amount of One Thousand One Hundred (1,100) cavans of palay; and to pay the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos as reimbursement for the amount respondents had paid their lawyer to protect their rights; and, the costs of suit. Instead of appealing the adverse decision to the Court of First Instance (now RTC), on 8 November 1983, petitioners filed the present case with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Roxas City, docketed as Civil Case No. V-4887. This case was dismissed for lack of cause of action in a decision, the decretal portion of which was quoted earlier.

On 24 November 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming in toto the ap-pealed decision.

Hence, the appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the 100 cavans of palay is an acceptable form of damages

RULING: NO. Affirm with modification. The one hundred cavans of palay was awarded as a form of damages. We cannot sustain the award. Palay is not legal tender currency in the Philippines. (LOL)G.R. No. 141994. January 17, 2005

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs. AGO MEDICAL AND EDU-CATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, (AMEC-BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO, respondents.

FACTS:

Expos is a radio documentary program hosted by Carmelo Mel Rima (Rima) and Hermogenes Jun Alegre (Alegre). Expos is aired every morning over DZRC-AM which is owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI). Expos is heard over Legazpi City, the Albay municipalities and other Bicol areas.

In the morning of 14 and 15 December 1989, Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged com-plaints from students, teachers and parents against Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC) and its administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, AMEC and Angelita Ago (Ago), as Dean of AMECs College of Medicine, filed a com-plaint for damages against FBNI, Rima and Alegre on 27 February 1990.

The complaint further alleged that AMEC is a reputable learning institution. With the supposed expose, FBNI, Rima and Alegre transmitted malicious imputations, and as such, destroyed plaintiffs (AMEC and Ago) reputation. AMEC and Ago included FBNI as defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Ale-gre.

On 14 December 1992, the trial court rendered a Decision] finding FBNI and Alegre liable for libel except Rima. In holding FBNI liable for libel, the trial court found that FBNI failed to exercise diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment with modification. The appellate court made Rima solidarily liable with FBNI and Alegre.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the broadcasts are libelous.

2. Whether or not AMEC is entitled to moral damages.

3. Whether or not the award of attorneys fees is proper.

RULING:

1. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act or omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious. Rima and Alegre failed to show ade-quately their good intention and justifiable motive in airing the supposed gripes of the students. As hosts of a documentary or public affairs program, Rima and Alegre should have presented the pub-lic issues free from  inaccurate and misleading information. Hearing the students alleged complaints a month before the expos, they had sufficient time to verify their sources and information. However, Rima and Alegre hardly made a thorough investigation of the students alleged gripes. Neither did they inquire about nor confirm the purported irregularities in AMEC from the Department of Edu-

cation, Culture and Sports. Alegre testified that he merely went to AMEC to verify his report from an alleged AMEC official who refused to disclose any information. Alegre simply relied on the words of the students because they were many and not because there is proof that what they are say-ing is true. This plainly shows Rima and Alegres reckless disregard of whether their report was true or not.

Had the comments been an expression of opinion based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. However, the comments of Rima and Alegre were not backed up by facts. Therefore, the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous per se.

The broadcasts also violate the Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, Ink. (Radio Code). Item I(B) of the Radio Code provides:

B. PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PUBLIC ISSUES AND COMMENTARIES1. x x x4. Public affairs program shall present public issues free from personal bias, prejudice

and inaccurate and misleading information. x x x Furthermore, the station shall strive to present balanced discussion of issues. x x x.

x x x7. The station shall be responsible at all times in the supervision of public affairs, public is-

sues and commentary programs so that they conform to the provisions and standards of this code.

8. It shall be the responsibility of the newscaster, commentator, host and announcer to pro-tect public interest, general welfare and good order in the presentation of public affairs and public issues.[36] 

The broadcasts fail to meet the standards prescribed in the Radio Code, which lays down the code of ethical conduct governing practitioners in the radio broadcast industry. The Radio Code is a voluntary code of conduct imposed by the radio broadcast industry on its own members. The Radio Code is a public warranty by the radio broadcast industry that radio broadcast practitioners are sub-ject to a code by which their conduct are measured for lapses, liability and sanctions.

The public has a right to expect and demand that radio broadcast practitioners live up to the code of conduct of their profession, just like other professionals. A professional code of conduct provides the standards for determining whether a person has acted justly, honestly and with good faith in the exercise of his rights and performance of his duties as required by Article 19 of the Civil Code. A professional code of conduct also provides the standards for determining whether a person who willfully causes loss or injury to another has acted in a manner contrary to morals or good cus-toms under Article 21 of the Civil Code.

2. FBNI contends that AMEC is not entitled to moral damages because it is a corporation.

A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The Court of Appeals cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral damages. However, the Courts statement in Mambulao that a corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages is an obiter dictum.

Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral damages.

Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implies damages. In such a case, evi-dence of an honest mistake or the want of character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of damages.[46] Neither in such a case is the plaintiff required to introduce evidence of ac-tual damages as a condition precedent to the recovery of some damages. In this case, the broadcasts are libelousper se. Thus, AMEC is entitled to moral damages.

However, we find the award of P300,000 moral damages unreasonable. The record shows that even though the broadcasts were libelous per se, AMEC has not suffered any substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, we reduce the award of moral damages from P300,000 to P150,000.

3. The award of attorney’s fees is not proper.

AMEC failed to justify satisfactorily its claim for attorney’s fees. AMEC did not adduce evi-dence to warrant the award of attorney’s fees. Moreover, both the trial and appellate courts failed to explicitly state in their respective decisions the rationale for the award of attorney’s fees.

 In Inter-Asia Investment Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that:

[I]t is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsels fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit.  The power of the court to award attorneys fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equi-table justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being im-properly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney’s fees.[51] (Emphasis supplied)

Petition denied.