FACTS:

In August 1987, a group of unsuccessful examinees filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC and the board of medical examiners to re-check and reevaluate the test papers. Rey Vidal, a reporter for GMA Network, Inc., covered the filing of the mandamus petition and composed a news report which was aired on GMA's Channel 7 Headline News. The news report stated that 227 examinees asked the court to compel the rechecking of the test papers, alleging irregularities. It also mentioned that some failing examinees obtained the official set of test questions and produced key answers to match their scores. The news report highlighted discrepancies in the checking of the test papers. The plaintiffs, who were physicians and former members of the Board of Medicine, filed a damage suit against Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., alleging defamation and the use of unrelated and old footage in the telecast.

The defendants argued that the telecast was a concise and objective narration of a matter of public concern, protected by press freedom. They also claimed that the film footages shown were "neutral" and accompanied by an appropriate voiceover. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and awarded damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, raising various issues on the alleged malice in the telecast and the rejection of evidence regarding the film footages and the tape copy of the telecast. The trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' damages claims based on the privileged communication was mentioned.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the news report is protected by the privilege of fair and true report of a complaint filed in court.

2. Whether the insertion of unrelated film footage in the news report constitutes malice.

3. Whether the news telecast falls under the qualifiedly privileged communication protected under the 1987 Constitution.

4. Whether the petitioners established ill-will and malice on the part of the respondents in their televised presentation of the news report.

5. Whether the use of old unrelated video footage in the news telecast constitutes actual malice.

6. Whether the failure to obtain and telecast the respondents' side indicates malice.

7. Whether the respondents have substantiated by preponderant evidence that the petitioners were motivated by a desire to inflict unjustifiable harm or discomfort on them.

8. Whether the respondents can claim damages based on the use of the video footage.

RULING:

1. The news report is protected by the privilege of fair and true report of a complaint filed in court. The report merely consists of a summary of the allegations in the petition for mandamus filed by the medical examinees.

2. The insertion of unrelated film footage in the news report does not constitute malice. While the insertion may have created a wrong impression, it does not imply malice as it was done in wanton and reckless disregard of the duty to render a fair, accurate, and true report.

3. The news telecast is considered a qualifiedly privileged communication protected under the 1987 Constitution. It was a simple narration of the allegations in the mandamus petition, devoid of any comment or remark. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the narration was without distortive or defamatory comments or remarks. The news report informed the public about the mandamus petition filed against the respondent doctors, which was within the petitioner's job as a news writer and reporter assigned to cover government institutions.

4. The respondents failed to establish ill-will and malice on the part of the petitioners in their televised presentation of the news report. The insertion of an old film footage, without accompanying character-generated words "file video," did not create the impression that other doctors were supporting and sympathizing with the unsuccessful examinees. The absence of the words "file video" would not change the privileged nature of the audio-video publication. Personal hurt or offense does not automatically equate to defamation. The law on libel protects one's interest in acquiring, retaining, and enjoying a reputation "as good as one's character and conduct warrant" in the community. The community's standards should be taken into account in evaluating allegations of libel and claims for damages.

5. The actual malice cannot be deduced from the fact that the petitioners dubbed in old unrelated video footage. The footage did not contain any attack on the reputation or false statements about the respondents.

6. The failure to obtain and telecast the respondents' side does not indicate malice.

7. The respondents have failed to substantiate by preponderant evidence that the petitioners were motivated by a desire to harm them or place them in a discomforting light.

8. The respondents are not entitled to moral damages as they failed to prove the factual and legal bases for their claim. Since they are not entitled to moral damages, they also cannot claim exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Fair and true report of a complaint filed in court without remarks or comments is covered by the privilege. The privilege extends even before an answer is filed or a decision is promulgated.

• Malice in libel must either be proven (malice in fact) or may be taken for granted in view of the grossness of the imputation (malice in law). Malice implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm and is shown when the author of defamatory remarks made them with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

• Not all imputations of discreditable acts or omissions are considered malicious. The privilege of fair and true report destroys the presumption of malice in defamatory imputations.

• There are two kinds of privilege in communication: absolute and qualified privilege. Absolute privilege provides an absolute bar to the action, while qualified privilege conditions the freedom from liability on the absence of express malice or malice in fact.

• The enumeration of conditional privilege communications under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code is not exclusive, as the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press has expanded the privilege to include fair commentaries on matters of public interest.

• The community's standards should be taken into account in evaluating allegations of libel and claims for damages. Personal hurt or offense is not automatically equivalent to defamation.

• Malice cannot be inferred from the mere fact of publication if the matter is not per se libelous.

• The failure to obtain and telecast the other side does not indicate malice.

• Moral damages are designed to compensate for injury sustained and actual damages suffered, not to impose a penalty.

• Exemplary damages may only be awarded if the claimants are entitled to other forms of damages.

• The rule on privileged matters protects fair and true reports made without malice.

• Public officers must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment on their official acts.