7/23/2019 Navarete vs CA

1/2

On LIBEL; PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

G.R. No. 124245; February 15, 2000

ANTONIO F. NAVARRETE vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Petitioner is a lawyer and was the one who reared and notari!ed the "eed o# $ales with Ri%ht

o# Reur&hase. $u&h instru'ent was sou%ht to be annulled by the rivate resondent on the

%round that her urorted si%nature therein was #or%ed.

Petitioner &lai's that in the &ourse o# the trial, he was #alsely and 'ali&iously slandered by the

rivate resondent in her ('ended )o'laint and her testi'onies. Petitioner #urther &lai's

that rivate resondent alluded to hi' when she said the words *stuid*, *bastards*, *swindlers*,

and *lunderers* while testi#yin%.

ISSUE:

+hether or not the state'ents 'ade by rivate resondent in the leadin%s and in her

testi'ony are &onsidered absolutely rivile%ed and as su&h, not a&tionable #or libel or #or

da'a%es.

RULING:

es.

-he )ourt held that it is a settled rin&ile in this urisdi&tion that state'ents 'ade in the &ourse

o# udi&ial ro&eedin%s are absolutely rivile%ed. -his absolute rivile%e re'ains re%ardless o#

the de#a'atory tenor and the resen&e o# 'ali&e i# the sa'e are relevant, ertinent or 'aterial

to the &ause in hand or sube&t o# the in/uiry. -hus, the erson 'ain% these state'ents su&h

as a ud%e, lawyer or witness does not thereby in&ur the ris o# bein% #ound liable thereon in a

&ri'inal rose&ution or an a&tion #or the re&overy o# da'a%es.

-he do&trine that state'ents 'ade durin% the &ourse o# udi&ial ro&eedin%s enoys the shield o#

absolute rivile%e. n several &ases, the )ourt has adoted the sa'e rulin% wherein state'ents'ade durin% udi&ial ro&eedin%s were sued uon #or libel or da'a%es. -he lone re/uire'ent

i'osed to 'aintain the &loa o# absolute rivile%e is the test o# relevan&y.

-he do&trine o# rivile%ed &o''uni&ation has a ra&ti&al urose. (s enun&iated in the &ase

o# Deles vs.Aragona, Jr.

7/23/2019 Navarete vs CA

2/2

-he rivile%e is not intended so 'u&h #or the rote&tion o# those en%a%ed in the ubli& servi&e

and in the ena&t'ent and ad'inistration o# law, as #or the ro'otion o# ubli& wel#are, the

urose bein% that 'e'bers o# the le%islature, ud%es o# &ourts, urors, lawyers and witnesses

'ay sea their 'inds #reely and e3er&ise their rese&tive #un&tions without in&urrin% the ris o#

a &ri'inal rose&ution or an a&tion #or da'a%es.

n deter'inin% the issue o# relevan&y o# state'ents 'ade in udi&ial ro&eedin%s, &ourts have

adoted a liberal attitude by resolvin% all doubts in #avor o# relevan&y. n People vs.Aquino, it

was e'hasi!ed that *it is the rule that what is relevant or ertinent should be liberally

&onsidered to #avor the writer, and the words are not to be s&rutini!ed with 'i&ros&oi&

intensity*.

n the &ase at bar, the )ourt #ound that the alle%ations 'ade by rivate resondent in her

('ended )o'laint stand the test o# relevan&y. -he words *#or%in%*, *'ali&ious and #raudulent*

and *#alsi#ied* are &learly ertinent to the &ause o# a&tion o# rivate resondent, whi&h is to annul

the "eed o# $ale with Ri%ht o# Reur&hase wherein rivate resondents si%nature was #or%ed

by an i'ostor, and to re&over da'a%es resultin% #ro' su&h #or%ery.

-he )ourt #ound that the ter's used by the rivate resondent in her leadin% and in her

testi'ony &annot be the basis #or an award o# 'oral da'a%es and attorneys #ees in #avor o#

etitioner. (s stated earlier, the words *#or%in%*, *#alsi#ied*, *'ali&ious* and *#raudulent* in the

('ended )o'laint are un'istaably relevant to rivate resondents &ause o# a&tion whi&h is

to annul the "eed o# $ale where her si%nature was #or%ed. -he words *stuid*, *bastards*,

*swindlers*, and *lunderers* uttered by rivate resondent did not se&i#i&ally ertain to

etitioner to su##i&iently identi#y hi' as the obe&t o# de#a'ation, su&h identi#iability bein% an

ele'ent o# a libelous i'utation. -he )ourt believes that neither etitioners %ood na'e and

neither reutation nor his hi%h standin% in the ro#ession has been da'a%ed by these

utteran&es.

(n e3a'ination o# the trans&rit earlier /uoted will show that rivate resondent did not allude

to etitioner in arti&ular when she used the words *stuid* and *bastards*. -he word *bastards*

was in resonse to this /uestion *Now, there are si%natures here as witnesses aearin% on

a%e 2 o# the do&u'ent, &an you tell us, s. +itness, i# you &an re&o%ni!e those

si%natures6* )learly, rivate resondent was alludin% to the witnesses to the deed in /uestion,

who are not arties in the resent a&tion. Petitioner was not a witness to the deed, he reared

and notari!ed it. (lso, the word *swindler* was used with arti&ular re#eren&e to another

de#endant who also is not a arty to the instant &ase. 7sed in the lural #or' in the other arts

o# her testi'ony, the words *those swindlers*, *those lunderers* and *those stuid eole*

re#erred to none o# the de#endants in arti&ular.