This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-05-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| given by a lone source although itreflects only one side of the story provided the reporter does not entertain a "high degree of awareness of [its] probable falsity."[31] Petitioner, in this case, presented no proof that respondents entertained such awareness. Failure to present respondents' informant before the court should not be taken against them.[32]Worth stressing, jurisprudence instructs us that a privileged communication should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds for malice or falsity. Such excessive scrutiny would defeat the protection which the law throws over privileged communications. The ultimate test is that of bona fides.[33] | |||||
|
2008-09-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The test to be followed is that laid down in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,[37] and reiterated in Flor v. People, which should be to determine whether the defamatory statement was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.[38] | |||||
|
2008-08-08 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In our quest for justice, we wish to avoid having injustice to anyone, particularly the members of the First Division, providing that they had no hand in the promulgation of the resolution in question. x x x If, however, we do not hear from you after a week, then we will consider your silence that you supported the dismissal of our petition. We will then be guided accordingly.[61] The letter to one of the Justices further stated - | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Privileged matters may be absolute or qualified.[14] Absolutely privileged matters are not actionable regardless of the existence of malice in fact. In absolutely privileged communications, the mala or bona fides of the author is of no moment as the occasion provides an absolute bar to the action. Examples of these are speeches or debates made by Congressmen or Senators in the Congress or in any of its committees. On the other hand, in qualifiedly or conditionally privileged communications, the freedom from liability for an otherwise defamatory utterance is conditioned on the absence of express malice or malice in fact. The second kind of privilege, in fine, renders the writer or author susceptible to a suit or finding of libel provided the prosecution established the presence of bad faith or malice in fact. To this genre belongs "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks" falling under and described as exceptions in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.[15] | |||||