Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LIGAYA S. NOVICIO v. ALMA AGGABAO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 200148 2014-06-04	RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG v. TERESITA D. RIVERA REYES, J.
"The rule on privileged communication means that a communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding duty."[43]
	GR No. 172203 2011-02-14	DIONISIO LOPEZ Y ABERASTURI v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
A 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 cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridicial person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead."[13] "For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a) it must be defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity and d) the victim must be identifiable."[14] Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel.
	GR NO. 157643 2008-03-28	CRISTINELLI S. FERMIN NACHURA, J.
memory of one who is dead.[31] In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.[32] To say that the article, in its entirety, is not libelous disturbs one's sensibilities; it would certainly prick one's conscience. There is evident imputation of the crime of malversation (that the complainants converted for their personal use the money paid to them by fellow
	GR NO. 170643 2006-09-08	JEJOMAR C. BINAY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself. (Emphasis added) In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are construed in their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.[22]
	GR NO. 142509 2006-03-24	JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.[11]