Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

LAGUNZAD vs.VDA.

DE GONZALES & CA FACTS Petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman, began the production of a movie enti tled "The Moises Padilla Story" portraying the life of Moises Padilla, a mayoral ty candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the Municipality of Magallon, Negros Occidental and for whose murder, Governor Rafael Lacson, a member of the Liberal Party then in power and his men were tried and convicted. The emphasis of the movie was on the public life of Moises Padilla, there were portions which dealt with his private and family life including the portrayal in some scenes, of his mother, Maria Soto, private respondent herein, and of one "Auring" as his girl f riend. Padilla s half sister, for and in behalf of her mother, Vda.de Gonzales, obje cted to the "exploitation" of his life and demanded in writing for certain chang es, corrections and deletions in the movie. After some bargaining as to the amou nt to be paid Lagunzad and Vda. de Gonzales, executed a "Licensing Agreement" wh ereby the latter as LICENSOR granted Lagunzad authority and permission to exploi t, use, and develop the life story of Moises Padilla for purposes of producing t he picture for consideration of P20,000.00.Lagunzad paid Vda. de Gonzales the am ount of P5,000.00. Subsequently, the movie was shown indifferent theaters all ov er the country. Because petitioner refused to pay any additional amounts pursuan t to the Agreement, Vda. de Gonzales instituted the present suit against him pra ying for judgment in her favor ordering petitioner 1) to pay her the balance of P15,000.00, with legal interest from of the Complaint; and 2) to render an ac counting of the proceeds from the picture and to pay the corresponding 2-1/2% ro yalty there from, among others. Petitioner contended in his Answer that the epis odes in life of Moises Padilla depicted in the movie were matters of public kno wledge and occurred at or about the same time that the deceased became and was a public figure; that private respondent has no property right over those inciden ts; that the Licensing Agreement was without valid cause or consideration and co nstitutes an infringement on the constitutional right of freedom of speech and o f the press; and that he paid private respondent the amount of P5,000.00 only be cause of the coercion and threat employed upon him. As a counterclaim, petitione r sought for the nullification of the Licensing Agreement, Both the trial court and the CA ruled in favor of Vda. deGonzales. ISSUES Whether or not the fictionalized representation of Moises Padilla is an intrusi on upon his right to privacy notwithstanding that he was a public figure. Whether or not Vda. de Gonzales., the mother, has any property right over the li fe of Moises Padilla considering that the latter was a public figure. Whether or not the Licensing Agreement constitutes an infringement on the consti tutional right of freedom of speech and of the press. HELD YES, being a public figure ipso facto does not automatically destroy in toto a p erson's right to privacy. The right to invade as person's privacy to disseminate public information does not extend to a fictional or novelized representation o f a person, no matter how public a figure he or she may be. In the case at bar, while it is true that petitioner exerted efforts to present a true-to-life story of Moises Padilla, petitioner admits that he included a little romance in the f ilm because without it, it would be a drab story of torture and brutality. YES, Lagunzad cannot dispense with the need for prior consent and authority fro m the deceased heirs to portray publicly episodes in said deceased's life and in that of his mother and the members of his family. As held in Schuyler v. Curtis " a privilege may be given the surviving relatives of a deceased person to prote ct his memory, but the privilege exists for the benefit of the living, to protec t their feelings and to prevent a violation of their own rights in the character and memory of the deceased." NO, Lagunzad claims that as a citizen and as a newspaperman, he had the right to express his thoughts in film on the public life of Moises Padilla without prior restraint. The right of freedom of expression, indeed, occupies a preferred pos ition in the "hierarchy of civil liberties." It is not, however, without limitat ions. One criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the p

ress is the "balancing-of-interests test." The principle requires a court to tak e conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation." In the case at bar, the interest s observable are the right to privacy asserted by r espondent and the right of -freedom of expression invoked by petitioner. Taking into account the interplay of those interests, and considering the obligations a ssumed in the Licensing Agreement entered into by petitioner, the validity of su ch agreement will have to be upheld particularly because the limits of freedom o f expression are reached when expression touches upon matters of essentially pri vate concern

Вам также может понравиться