View full case

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK v. AGO MEDICAL

FACTS:

This case involves a complaint for damages filed by Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC) and its dean, Angelita Ago, against Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI), and its broadcasters Hermogenes Alegre and Carmelo Rima. The complainants alleged that the defendants made defamatory statements against AMEC and its administrators in the radio documentary program "Exposé" aired on DZRC-AM. The broadcasts contained various complaints from students, teachers, and parents regarding alleged irregularities in AMEC's operations. The broadcasts also questioned the legitimacy of AMEC's funding from foreign foundations. AMEC and Ago sought damages for libel. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of AMEC and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modification and held FBNI, Alegre, and Rima liable for libel and ordered them to pay damages.

AMEC-BCCM and its president, Leodivico S. Ago, filed a complaint for damages against FBNI, Rima, and Alegre. They alleged that the broadcasts contained false and malicious imputations that damaged their reputation. In their defense, FBNI, Rima, and Alegre claimed that the broadcasts were fair and true and were made in the exercise of their duty to inform the public. FBNI argued that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. The trial court held FBNI and Alegre liable for libel but absolved Rima. It found FBNI negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modification, holding FBNI, Rima, and Alegre solidarily liable. FBNI filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals denied FBNI, Rima, and Alegre's motion for reconsideration.

The case involves a libel complaint filed by Advanced Microelectronics Corporation (AMEC) against Far East Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI), Rodel Alegre, and Edwin Rima. AMEC alleged that FBNI aired broadcasts containing libelous remarks that damaged its reputation. The broadcasts, which were made by Rima and Alegre, accused AMEC of engaging in illegal activities, specifically citing smuggling, fraud, and tax evasion. AMEC argued that these statements were false and defamatory, causing harm to its business and professional reputation.

During the trial, FBNI argued that the broadcasts were not libelous because they were based on verified information, while Alegre claimed that he was not aware the statements were defamatory. The trial court ruled in favor of AMEC, finding FBNI, Rima, and Alegre liable for damages. It held that the broadcasts were indeed libelous, as they were false and defamatory statements that harmed AMEC's reputation. The court awarded AMEC moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

FBNI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the broadcasts were not libelous, and that AMEC was not entitled to moral damages or attorney's fees. FBNI also contended that it should not be held solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre for the payment of damages. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling, stating that the broadcasts were indeed libelous and caused harm to AMEC's reputation. It also held FBNI, Rima, and Alegre solidarily liable for the payment of damages, including moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the broadcasts are libelous.

  2. Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages.

  3. Whether the award of attorney's fees is proper.

  4. Whether FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre for the payment of moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

RULING:

  1. Whether the broadcasts are libelous

    The broadcasts were held to be libelous per se. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that Rima and Alegre failed to adequately demonstrate good intention and justifiable motive, and that their broadcasts were made with reckless disregard for the truth. The broadcast remarks were defamatory and malicious.

  2. Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages

    Yes, AMEC is entitled to moral damages. Despite being a juridical person, under Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code, AMEC can claim moral damages in cases of libel. The Court accordingly reduced the award for moral damages from P300,000 to P150,000, considering the lack of substantial damage to AMEC's reputation.

  3. Whether the award of attorney’s fees is proper

    The award of attorney's fees was deleted. Both the trial and appellate courts failed to state the rationale for the award of attorney's fees, and AMEC did not adequately justify its claim.

  4. Whether FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre for payment of moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit

    Yes, FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre. The Court found insufficient evidence that FBNI exercised due diligence in the supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. The Court affirmed that AMEC's claim against FBNI is correctly anchored on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Libel per se Defamatory imputations are presumed malicious unless adequately justified.

  • Article 33 of the Civil Code Allows for a separate civil action for damages in cases of defamation.

  • Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code Authorizes the award of moral damages in cases of libel without distinguishing between natural and juridical persons.

  • Article 2208 of the Civil Code Requires factual, legal, and equitable justification for the award of attorney's fees.

  • Diligence in supervision and selection of employees (Articles 2176 and 2180) Employers can be held solidarily liable for the tortious acts of employees within the scope of their employment if they fail to exercise due diligence.

  • Doctrine of fair comment Protects fair commentaries on matters of public interest based on established facts.

  • Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas Sets ethical standards for radio broadcasters.