Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs.

Ago Medical and Educational Center(AMEC)-Bicol Christian College of

Medicine (BCCM)
GR 141994, 17 January 2005
Carpio (J):
FACTS: Expos is a radio documentary program, hosted by Rima and Alegre, which is aired every morning over
DZRC-AM owned by Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. Expos is heard over Bicol areas. On December
14&15,1989, Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged complaints from students, teachers and parents against
AMEC and its administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, AMEC and the Dean of AMECs College
of Medicine, filed a complaint for damages against FBNI, Rima and Alegrefor the transmitted malicious imputations,
and as such, destroyed AMECs and Agos reputation. AMEC and Ago included FBNI as defendant for allegedly
failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
FBNI, Rima and Alegre alleged that the broadcasts against AMEC were fair and true. FBNI, Rima and Alegre
claimed that they were plainly impelled by a sense of public duty to report the goings-on in AMEC, [which is] an
institution imbued with public interest. The trial court rendered a Decision finding FBNI and Alegre liable for libel
except Rima. The trial court held that the broadcasts are libelous per se. In holding FBNI liable for libel, the trial court
found that FBNI failed to exercise diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In absolving Rima from
the charge, the trial court ruled that Rimas only participation was when he agreed with Alegres expos. The trial
court found Rimas statement within the bounds of freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment with modification. CA made Rima solidarily liable
with FBNI and Alegre. Also, CA court denied Agos claim for damages and attorneys fees because the broadcasts
were directed against AMEC, and not against her. FBNI, Rima and Alegre filed a motion for reconsideration which the
Court of Appeals denied. Hence, FBNI filed the petition for review.
Issue: Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages.
Held: AFFIRMATIVE. A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person,
it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
moral shock. The Court of Appeals cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral damages.
However, the Courts statement in Mambulao that a corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched,
may also be a ground for the award of moral damages is an obiter dictum. Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral
damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of
moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form ofdefamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the
plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain for
libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral damages. Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se,
the law implies damages. In such a case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of character or reputation of the
party libeled goes only in mitigation of damages. Neither in such a case is the plaintiff required to introduce evidence
of actual damages as a condition precedent to the recovery of some damages. In this case, the broadcasts are
libelous per se.
Thus, AMEC is entitled to moral damages. However, the Court found the award of P300,000 moral damages
unreasonable. The record shows that even though the broadcasts were libelous per se, AMEC has not suffered any
substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, the Court reduced the award of moral damages from
P300,000 to P150,000.