Case Digest: Bonifacio et al.
, vs RTC Since the article was first published and accessed by Gimenez at Makati
Makati and Jessie John Gimenez GR No
184800
By ResIpsaLoquitor - September 01, 2013
Bonifacio et al., vs RTC Makati and Jessie John Gimenez
GR No 184800 May 5,
2010
Facts:
Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed in behalf of Yuchenco Family of
Yuchenco Group of Companies (YGC) and Malayan Insurance Co.,
(Malayan), a criminal complain for 13 counts of libel under Art. 355 in
relation to Art. 353 of the RPC against the members of Paents Enabling
Parents Coalition Inc (PEPCI), a group of discontented planholders of
Pacific Plans, Inc (PPI) which is owned by the Yuchengco’s, for they
previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were
unable to collect thereon or avail of the benefits of such after PPI, due to
liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer of
suspension of payments.
That PEPCI members owns and moderates a website and a blog with web
domains: www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, www.pepcoalition.com, and
no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com. Gimenez alleged that upon accessing
such websites in Makati he red various article containing highly
derogatory statements and false accusations attacking the Yuchengco
Family.
City, pursuant to Art. 360 of the RPC as amended by RA 4363.
Issue:
How should an online article be treated in relation to a written
defamation/libel with respect to jurisdiction of the case provided by law
specifically Art. 360 of the RPC?
Ruling:
Art. 360 of the RPC provides:
“Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or
exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same.
xxxx
The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously
or separately with the RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the commission of the oofense. xxxx”
That venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is
limited only to:
1. Where the complainant actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense; or
 2. Where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first
published.

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published
was used as basis for the venue of the action, the Information must allege
with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first
published. The same measures cannot be reasonably expected when it
pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as
there would be no way of determining the point of its printing and first
publication. TO give credence to Gimenez’s argument would spawn the
very ills that the amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to discourage
and prevent. It would do chaos wherein website author, writer, blogger or
anyone who post messages in websites could be sued for libel anywhere
in the Philippines.

The information is quashed and the case is dismissed.