Fortich vs CA

Facts: Fortice was asn area salesman of San Miguel Corp in Dipolog City. His
job required him to collect various sums of money from the retailers and buyers. In
1979, he recieved an inter-office memorandum saying he stop plying his routes for
failure to issue reciepts of collectibles. A 2nd inter-office memo was issued to him
alleging that he misapprorpiated an amount of P1605. It was also added that he was
an avid mahjong player and a cock fighting enthusiast. These memos were issued
by his District Sales Supervisor, F. Galleron who relied on affidavits of the retailers
attesting to Fortich’s irregularities. An investigation was held by the corporation’s
superiors based on Galleron’s findings and found Fortich guilty of misapprpriating
company funds. Fortich was soon fired. He then filed a libel case against Galleron.
RTC found in favor of Fortich. CA reversed.

Issue: Is Galleron guilty of libel?

Held: NO. To be liable for libel, there must be an element of

PUBLICITY. In this case there is none.
First, the memorandums were part of an investigation about Fortich’s non-
remmittance of reciepts. Being inter-office memos, it implies confidentiality.
Second, Fortich failed to prove that the memos were circulated or publicized and
read by people other than those involved in the investigation. While there has been
imputation of a defect on Fortich’s character in the memo, it was not made publicly.

Also, Fortich failed to prove that the letters were motivated by malice. While the law
presumes defamatory imputations to be malicious, there are exceptions. The
inter-office memorandums fall within the ambit of priviledge communication
rule.
A priviledged communication is one made bonafide upon any subject
matter in which a party communicating has an interestor in reference to
which he has a duty. Galleron had a duty to report the misapprpriations of
Fortich to the company because he is charged to carry out company rules and
policies. He would have been remiss on his duties if he did not have Fortich
investigated.
And even if his statements that Fortich was an avid mahjong player and
cockfighting enthusiast was yet unsubstantiated when he put those in the memos,
the rule on priviledge communications allows the latitude of expression
embodied in Galleron’s memos.
Mercado vs CFI Rizal – even when the statements are found to be false, if there is
probabale cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith,
the priviledge may still cover the mistake of the individual. But the mistake must be
made ubder an honest sense of duty.