Digested Borjal vs. CA

7/27/2019 Digested Borjal vs. CA

1/3

G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999

ARTURO BORJAL a.k.a. ART BORJAL and MAXIMOSOLIVEN, petitioners,

vs.COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO WENCESLAO,

respondents.

Facts:

1. A civil action for damages based on libel was filed

before the court against Borjal and Soliven for writingand publishing articles that are allegedly derogatory

and offensive against Francisco Wenceslao, attacking

among others the solicitation letters he send to support

a conference to be launch concerning resolving matters

on transportation crisis that is tainted with anomalous

activities.

2. Wenceslao however was never named in any of thearticles nor was the conference he was organizing. The

lower court ordered petitioners to indemnify the private

respondent for damages which was affirmed by the

Court of Appeals. A petition for review was filed before

the SC contending that private respondent was not

sufficiently identified to be the subject of the published

articles.

Issue:

Whether or not there are sufficient grounds to constitute guilt

of petitioners for libel?


2/3

Ruling of the Case:

1. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim

be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named.

It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized

himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it must be

shown that at least a third person could identify him as the

object of the libelous publication.These requisites have not

been complied with in the case at bar. The element of

identifiability was not met since it was Wenceslaso who

revealed he was the organizer of said conference and had

he not done so the public would not have known.

2. The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the

freedom of the press and that privileged communications

must be protective of public opinion. Fair commentaries on

matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid

defense in an action for libel or slander.The doctrine of fair comment means that while in

general every discreditable imputation publicly made is

deemed false, because every man is presumed

innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every

false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless,

when the discreditable imputation is directed against a

public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarilyactionable. In order that such discreditable imputation

to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a

false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false

supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion,


3/3

based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the

opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might

reasonably be inferred from the facts.

3. The questioned article dealt with matters of public interest as

the declared objective of the conference, the composition of

its members and participants, and the manner by which it

was intended to be funded no doubt lend to its activities as

being genuinely imbued with public interest. Respondent is

also deemed to be a public figure and even otherwise is

involved in a public issue. The court held that freedom of

expression is constitutionally guaranteed and protected with

the reminder among media members to practice highest

ethical standards in the exercise thereof.

Documents

Digested Borjal vs. CA