Jimenez v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. 15905, August 3, 1966

-

Summary: Congressman Bartolome Cabangbang wrote a letter alleging that there are “planners” who are controlling the petitioners to help fulfill the goal of  “an insidious plan”. The letter was addressed to the President and was likewise published in several newspapers. Plaintiffs instituted a libel case against Cabangbang. SC ruled that even though the letter is not within the purview of “speech or debate” of Art 6, Sec 15 of the 1935 Constitution, which protects the Congressman from suit, the allegation made in the letter was still insufficient to support the plaintiffs' action as the letter itself provided the possibility that the plaintiffs are just “unwitting tools” of the plan of “which they may have absolutely on knowledge”.

----------------------------------------

Ponente: CONCEPCION, C.J.

Facts:

Plaintiffs Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban instituted in the CFI Rizal a civil action for the recovery of several sums of money, by way of damages, for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang. 

Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National Defense.

In the letter Cabangbang wrote, he alleged 3 operational plans made by unnamed “planners” all of which aims to put the military/or a military (Jesus Vargas) in control of the government.

In connection to plan 1, he wrote:

It is reported that the "Planners" have under their control the following: (1) Col. Nicanor Jimenez of NICA, (2) Lt. Col. Jose Lukban of NBI, (3) Capt. Carlos Albert (PN) of G-2 AFP, (4) Col. Fidel Llamas of MIS (5) Lt. Col. Jose Regala of the Psychological Warfare Office, DND, and (6) Major Jose Reyna of the Public information Office, DND. To insure this control, the "Planners" purportedly sent Lt. Col. Job Mayo, Chief of MIS to Europe to study and while Mayo was in Europe, he was relieved by Col. Fidel Llamas. They also sent Lt. Col. Deogracias Caballero, Chief of Psychological Warfare Office, DND, to USA to study and while Caballero was in USA, he was relieved by Lt. Col. Jose Regala. The "Planners" wanted to relieve Lt. Col. Ramon Galvezon, Chief of CIS (PC) but failed. Hence, Galvezon is considered a missing link in the intelligence network. It is, of course, possible that the offices mentioned above are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge.

CFI dismissed the case, hence this appeal.

Defendant's Argument: The letter is not libelous, and that, even if was, said letter is a privileged communication.

----------------------------------------

Issue 1 of 2: WON the letter falls within the purview of the phrase "speech or debate therein" of Art 6, Sec 15.

Held: No. 

The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place. (Article VI, Section 15.)

Said expression refers to

(1)utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session,

(2) bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not, or

(3) other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the performance of the acts in question

The publication does not belong to any of these categories.

Issue 2 of 2: WON the publication is libelous.

Held: No. 

The defendant qualified the involvement of the plaintiffs in the “insidious plan” by saying that there's a possibility that they themselves are unaware of the plan and are unaware that they are being use to achieve the goal of the plan.

The statement is not derogatory as it just state a fact: that they are officers of our Armed Forces, that as such they are by law, under the control of the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff, and that the letter seems to suggest that the group therein described as "planners" include these two (2) high ranking officers.

Plaintiffs alleged that the intent of the letter is to impeach their reputation. This is not the intent of the letter.

An audio version of this digest is available at YouTube. Click this link to listen.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp., G.R. Nos. 75875, 75951 & 75975-76, December 15, 1989

-
Summary:  American Standard Inc (ASI), a foreign corporation in US entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Filipino investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. One such provision is: As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (Section 5(a) of the Agreement) . The 30% capital stock of ASI was later increased to 40%. On Mar 8, 1983, the election of the members of the board of directors was held. - Th...
Read more

Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

-
Ponente: KAPUNAN J. A Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition. Summary:  Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines Respondent: Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo M. Lacson, Gen. Edgar B. Aglipay, Gen. Angelo Reyes President Estrada deployed the Marines to patrol certain parts of Metro Manila. IBP questioned  the constitutionality of this action. The SC decided that the IBP has no locus standi but chose to take cognizance of the petition as it is of paramount importance to the public (especially in light of Martial Law). SC decided that Estrada's deployment of Marines is constitutional and dismissed the filed petition. ---------------------------------------- Facts: President Estrada, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and through a verbal directive, deployed the Marines, to join the PNP in visibility patrols in response to alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila. The PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B....
Read more

Joaquin v. Navarro, G.R. Nos. L-5426-28, May 29, 1953

-
Ponente: TUASON, J. Facts:  On Feb 6, 1945, the Navarro Family took refuge in the ground floor of the German Club Building. All three of Joaquin Navarro, Sr’s daughters died when the Japanese started shooting at the people inside the building. Joaquin Navarro Sr, his son Joaquin Navarro Jr, Adela Conde(his son's wife) and a   family friend Francisco Lopez abandoned the building. Angela Joaquin Navarro refused to join them. As they came out, Joaquin Jr was shot in the head by a Japanese soldier. Minutes later the German Club Building, which was on fire, collapsed. Joaquin Navarro Sr, Adela Conde and Francisco Lopez managed to reach an air raid shelter. They stayed there for 3 days. On Feb 10, the three fled toward St. Theresa Academy, but unfortunately met Japanese patrols, who fired at them Joaquin Navarro Sr and his daughter in law died. Franciso Lopez survived. After the war, three proceedings were instituted in the CFI Manila for the summary settlement of the estates...
Read more