Borjal vs Court of Appeals

Facts: A civil action for damages based on libel was filed before the court against Borjal and Soliven for
writing and 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. Wenceslao however
was never named in any of the articles 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.

Held: 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.
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 necessarily actionable. 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, 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.
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.

A privileged communication may be either:

1. Absolutely privileged communication à those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad
faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art.VI, of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of Congress
from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof.

2. Qualifiedly privileged communications à those containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless
found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this genre belong "private
communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks."