LOPEZ VS.

CA
[34 SCRA 116; L-26549; 31 JUL 1970]

Facts:
 January 1956 – Front-page story on the Manila Chronicle, Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector
assigned to the Babuyan Islands, sent distress signals to US Airforce planes which forwarded
such message to Manila.
 An American Army plane dropped emergency sustenance kits on the beach of the island which
contained, among other things, a two way radio set. Using the radio set Cruz reported to the
authorities in Manila that the locals were living in terror due to a series of killings committed on
the island since Christmas of 1955.
 Philippine defense forces (scout rangers) were immediately deployed to the babuyan claro. They
were led by Major Wilfredo Encarnacion who discovered that Cruz only fabricated the story about
the killings to get attention. Cruz merely wanted transportation home to Manila.
 Major Encarnacion branded the fiasco as a “hoax”, the same word to be used by the newspapers
who covered the same
 January 13, 1956 - This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle, edited by Gatbonton devoted
a pictorial article to it. It claimed that despite the story of Cruz being a hoax it brought to light the
misery of the people living in that place, with almost everybody sick, only 2 individuals able to
read and write and food and clothing being scarce
 January 29, 1956 - This Week Magazineà in the "January News Quiz" made reference to Cruz
as “a health inspector who suddenly felt "lonely" in his isolated post, cooked up a story about a
murderer running loose on the island of Calayan so that he could be ferried back to civilization.”
à Called it “Hoax of the year”
 In both issues photos of a Fidel Cruz were published but both photos were of a different person
of the same name à Fidel G. Cruz former mayor, business man, contractor from Santa Maria,
Bulacan
 January 27, 1957 à published statements correcting their misprint and explained that confusion
and error happened due to the rush to meet the Jan 13th issue’s deadline
 Cruz sued herein petitioners for libel in CFI Manila. Cruz won and was awarded P11,000 in
damages (5k actual, 5k moral, 1k attorney’s fees)
 CA affirmed CFI decision hence this case

Issue:
 WON petitioners should be held liable for their error in printing the wrong Fidel Cruz’s photo in
relation to the “hoax of the year”?
 WON such error is sufficient ground for an action for libel to prosper?

Held:
Yes they are liable but damages awarded to Cruz is reduced to P1,000.00

Ratio:
1. Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on its face by the fact that it
exposes the injured party to more than trivial ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant.
 Citing Lu Chu Sing v. Lu Tiong Gui, libel is "malicious defamation, expressed either in writing,
printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, ..., tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead
or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects of one
who is alive, and thereby "pose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule,"
  Citing standard treatise of Newell on Slander and Libel, "Publication of a person's photograph in
connection with an article libelous of a third person, is a libel on the person whose picture is
published, where the acts set out in the article are imputed to such person."
 In this case, 3rd person was Cruz, his picture being published beside the article imputes him as
the purveyor (source) of the hoax of the year.

2. Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also can not claim any talismanic immunity
form constitutional limitations
 State interest in press freedom, citing Justice Malcolm: Full discussion of public affairs is
necessary for the maintenance of good governance… “Public officials must not be too thin-
skinned with reference to comments on official acts”…”of course criticism does not authorize
defamation. Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the state, so must expected criticism be
born for the common good.”
 So long as it was done in good faith, the press should have the legal right to have and express
their opinions on legal questions. To deny them that right would be to infringe upon freedom of
the press.
 “Last word on the subject” à Citing Quisumbing v. Lopez: Press should be given leeway and
tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our
democracy
 Freedom of the press ranks high in the hierarchy of legal values
 TEST of LIABLITY à must prove there was actual malice in publishing the story/photo (Note: but
this was not done in this case)

Dissent: Dizon, J.
 Manila Chronicle should be absolved because:
 No evidence of actual malice
 The article does not ascribe anything immoral or any moral turpitude to Cruz
 The negligence performed by Manila Chronicle is this case should be considered “excusable
negligence”
LOPEZ VS. CA
[34 SCRA 116; L-26549; 31 JUL 1970]

Facts:

In the early part of January, 1956, there appeared on the front page of The Manila Chronicle, of
which petitioner Lopez was the publisher, as well as on other dailies, a news story of a sanitary inspector
assigned to the Babuyan Islands, Fidel Cruz, sending a distress signal to a passing United States Airforce
plane which in turn relayed the message to Manila. An American Army plane dropping on the beach of
an island an emergency-sustenance kit containing, among other things, a two-way radio set. He utilized
it to inform authorities in Manila that the people in the place were living in terror, due to a series of killings
committed since Christmas of 1955. Losing no time, the Philippines defense establishment rushed to the
island a platoon of scout rangers. Upon arriving Major Encarnacion and his men found, instead of the
alleged killers, a man named Fidel Cruz who merely wanted transportation home to Manila. In view of
this finding, Major Encarnacion branded as a "hoax," the report of respondent.

This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle, then edited by Gatbonton, devoted a pictorial
article to it in its issue of January 15, 1956. Mention was made that while Fidel Cruz’ story turned out to
be false it brought attention to the government that people in that most people in the area are sick sick,
only two individuals able to read and write, food and clothing being scarce.

The magazine carried photographs of the person purporting to be Fidel Cruz. Unfortunately, the
pictures that were published were that of private respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a businessman contractor
from Santa Maria, Bulacan. It turned out that the photographs of respondent Cruz and that of Fidel Cruz,
sanitary inspector, were on file in the library of the Manila Chronicle but when the news quiz format was
prepared, the two photographs were in advertently switched. However a correction was published
immediately.

Respondent sued petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of damages
alleging the defamatory character of the above publication of his picture. Defense interposed that they
are beating the deadline. The court ruled in his favor. Hence the appeal.

Issue:

Whether or Not petitioners abused the freedom of the press.

Held:

No. The SC, quoting Quisumbing v. Lopez, found for plaintiff, but with reduced damages, since
the error in this case could have been checked considering that this was a weekly magazine and not a
daily. The ruling: "there is no evidence in the record to prove that the publication of the news item under
consideration was prompted by personal ill will or spite, or that there was intention to do harm,' and that
on the other hand there was 'an honest and high sense of duty to serve the best interests of the public,
without self-seeking motive and with malice towards none.' Every citizen of course has the right to enjoy
a good name and reputation, but we do not consider that the respondents, under the circumstances of
this case, had violated said right or abused the freedom of the press. The newspapers should be given
such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role
in our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters and editors usually have to race with their
deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a
point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.
 “No inroads on press freedom should be allowed in the guise of punitive action visited on what
otherwise could be characterized as libel whether in the form of printed words or a defamatory imputation
resulting from the publication of respondent's picture with the offensive caption as in the case here
complained of. This is merely to underscore the primacy that freedom of the press enjoys.”