Preview

Libel in the Philippines

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
6858 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Libel in the Philippines
-------------------------------------------------
Libel Laws of the Philippines
Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. [Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]
In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words used by him mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of words used in the following manner, viz:
“Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. . . . ” [Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988) citing U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)]
An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not required that the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    On June 17, 1996, a bridal photograph of the plaintiff and her husband was posted in the wedding section of the Daily Gazette. On June 17, 1996, in the morning radio broadcast, the defendant (being the radio station and employees) had broadcasted offensive, abusive and ridiculing remarks at the physical attractiveness of the bride (plaintiff), including her full name, her place of employment (which happens to be the competing radio station). These remarks were part of the radio station’s “Ugliest Bride…

    • 1852 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    WIRETIME has committed an intentional business related tort known as Defamation. In this case all four elements of defamation are present. A defamatory statement was made, it was spread to a third party, the statement was very definite to one company, and it caused damages to BUGusa business.…

    • 708 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The first rule applied in this case was the rule of libel and slander, which states that the cause of defamation must include four elements: “1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; 2) an unprivileged communication to a third party; 3) fault by the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and 4) special harm of the actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm.” (822) Libel is the defamation of one’s character in written form, and slander is the…

    • 1957 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bugusa Case Study

    • 914 Words
    • 4 Pages

    A Tort was committed by WIRETIME, Inc. which means “a civil wrong where on party has acted, or in some cases failed to act, and that action or inaction causes a loss to be suffered by another party” (Melvin, S.P., 2011) The statement made by WIRETIME, Inc. will potentially harm Bugusa, Inc. reputation. A statement made by WIRETIME, Inc. accusing Bugusa, Inc. products were low quality and did not work past a months’ time. This type of statement is a defamatory “A false and defamatory…

    • 914 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    b) If the person is a public official or figure a plantiff seeking damages for distress must prove actual malice. Actual malice includes knowledge that the printed statements are false or circumstances showing a reckless disregard for whether they are true or not. If the plaintiff is not a public figure there is liability without malice.…

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The first chapter focuses on slander cases within the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam, where defamation was often grounds for court…

    • 1366 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    | a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation…

    • 876 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Eposito Case

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages

    4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for?…

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Bugusa, Inc.

    • 1676 Words
    • 7 Pages

    WIRETIME, Inc. committed a defamatory tort which is “a civil wrong where one party has acted, or in some cases failed to act, and that action or inaction causes a loss to be suffered by another party” (Melvin, 2011, p. 208). A tort was committed because WIRETIME, Inc. made a statement that will hurt the reputation of BUGusa, Inc. The statement made is “a false and defamatory statement concerning a party’s reputation, honesty, or a statement that subjected a party to hate, contempt, or ridicule. In order to qualify as defamatory, the statement must have a tendency to harm the reputation of the plaintiff” (Melvin, 2011, p. 209). Next WIRETIME, Inc. placed a defamatory advertisement in a well-known industry magazine that contained a statement that is accusing BUGusa, Inc. for having a bad product. By doing this, the dissemination of the advertisement to a third party is an element that requires the statement must somehow reach the ears or eyes of someone other than the tortfeasor and the victim, (Melvin, 2011, p. 209). Finally, the advertisement has the third element, specificity. Specificity means the WIRETIME, Inc. advertisement specified a particular party, BUGusa, Inc. and their product and services, (Melvin 2011). Because of this defamatory advertisement, BUGusa, Inc. will probably suffer damages or loss of clients because of the negative implications stated in the WIRETIME, Inc. advertisement.…

    • 1676 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Flynt V Falwell Summary

    • 891 Words
    • 4 Pages

    v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This ad parody did not display actual malice, that is Hustler did not publish false facts in order to intentionally harm this man, also that no reasonable person could believe the facts of the ad to be true. Although the ad may have been distasteful and outrageous, according to the respondent, "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An "outrageousness" standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) ("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). Also, as stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726…

    • 891 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Esposito v. SFX

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for? (5 points)…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Study Guide chapter 13

    • 3923 Words
    • 16 Pages

    mudslinging Malicious, unscrupulous attacks against an opponent. “Mudslinging reached new lows in 1828. . . .”…

    • 3923 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    But free speech was not a defence for us to argue. Instead, a jury would decide whether our magazine was obscene or indecent? I admit it may have been shocking, even disgusting. But the prosecution said it was “intended to deprave and corrupt”. We disagreed.…

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for? (5 points)…

    • 385 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    what is crime

    • 929 Words
    • 4 Pages

    of a criminal case. If I slander somebody, I might be dragged into court, and I might have…

    • 929 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays