G.R. No. L-29630 - JULY 1981 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-29630July 2, 1981 Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank vs. Philnabank Employees' Association, et al. A.M. No. 1970-JDRCJuly 9, 1981 Bernarda Cononizado vs. J. Regina Ordoñez-Benitez G.R. No. L-32071July 9, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Luis F. Garcia G.R. Nos. L-56772-84July 9, 1981 Eufemio P. Caparas, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-47088July 10, 1981 Consolacion Duque Salonga vs. Julita B. Farrales G.R. Nos. L-47859 & L-57132July 10, 1981 San Mauricio Mining Co. vs. Constante A. Ancheta G.R. No. L-26467July 15, 1981 Florencio T. Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-33127July 15, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Saturnino Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-38172July 15, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Segundino Utrela G.R. No. L-43789July 15, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Ariston Francisco G.R. No. L-50929July 15, 1981 Investors' Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-54419July 15, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. J. Dimalanes Buissan A.M. No. 1943July 17, 1981 Catalino T. Sapaden vs. Federico S. Tolentino A.M. No. 882July 17, 1981 Francisco Tejada vs. Vicente Acsay A.M. No. P-2254July 17, 1981 Felicidad Felarca-Berdin vs. Petronila Ambrosio-Garcia Adm. Case No. 1541July 20, 1981 Gaudencio R. Mabutol vs. Manuel R. Maza A.M. No. 2258-CFIJuly 20, 1981 Vicente D. Trinidad vs. Gabriel O. Valle, Jr. G.R. No. L-28421July 20, 1981 Moises Llantero vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-33507July 20, 1981 Fe P. Velasco vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. G.R. No. L-54452July 20, l981 Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. vs. Emeterio C. Cui G.R. No. L-55063July 20, 1981 Republic of the Phil vs. Ignacio M. Capulong G.R. No. L-55968July 20, 1981 Amelito R. Mutuc vs. Jaime R. Agloro G.R. No. L-56435July 20, 1981 Carlos A. Trinidad, et al. vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-24559July 22, 1981 J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Guillermo E. Torres G.R. No. L-37896July 22, 1981 Luzon Stevedoring Corp. vs. Workmens Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-27086July 24, 1981 Delfin Lim vs. Pedro Callejo, Jr. G.R. No. L-34217July 24, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Hermilo Arcamo G.R. No. L-36613-14July 24, 1981 People of the Philippines Restituto Jimenez G.R. No.L-36882-84July 24, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Mauro Verges G.R. No. L-47472July 24, 1981 Valentino Taboy vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-51151July 24, 1981 Paz G. Romualdez, et al. vs. Antonio P. Tiglao, et al. G.R. No. L-53570July 24, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Armando Matilla G.R. No. L-53664July 24, 1981 Celedonia M. Samson vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-54063July 24, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Villar G.R. No. L-30577July 24, 1981 People of the Phil vs. Ricarte Obedoza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank vs. Philnabank Employees' Association, et al. Bernarda Cononizado vs. J. Regina Ordoñez-Benitez People of the Philippines vs. Luis F. Garcia Eufemio P. Caparas, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Consolacion Duque Salonga vs. Julita B. Farrales San Mauricio Mining Co. vs. Constante A. Ancheta Florencio T. Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Saturnino Mendoza, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Segundino Utrela People of the Philippines vs. Ariston Francisco Investors' Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. J. Dimalanes Buissan Catalino T. Sapaden vs. Federico S. Tolentino Francisco Tejada vs. Vicente Acsay Felicidad Felarca-Berdin vs. Petronila Ambrosio-Garcia Gaudencio R. Mabutol vs. Manuel R. Maza Vicente D. Trinidad vs. Gabriel O. Valle, Jr. Moises Llantero vs. Court of Appeals Fe P. Velasco vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. vs. Emeterio C. Cui Republic of the Phil vs. Ignacio M. Capulong Amelito R. Mutuc vs. Jaime R. Agloro Carlos A. Trinidad, et al. vs. Juan Ponce Enrile J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Guillermo E. Torres Luzon Stevedoring Corp. vs. Workmens Compensation Commission Delfin Lim vs. Pedro Callejo, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Hermilo Arcamo People of the Philippines Restituto Jimenez People of the Philippines vs. Mauro Verges Valentino Taboy vs. Court of Appeals Paz G. Romualdez, et al. vs. Antonio P. Tiglao, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Armando Matilla Celedonia M. Samson vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Villar People of the Phil vs. Ricarte Obedoza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-29630 July 2, 1981
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, ROMEO G. ROY, DALUYONG GABRIEL, BAYANI A. BAUTISTA, DOMINGO VILLANUEVA, ALEJANDRO RICARDO, JESUS MANAHAN, MANUEL JACINTO, ERNESTO BATAC, LEONIDO CASPE PATRICIA GRANADOS and PANTALEON BERNARDO,defendants-appellees.
FERNANDO,C.J.:
There is a unique aspect to this action for libel against the Philippine National Bank Employees' Association.1It was filed by plaintiff Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank as a result of placards and signboards along the Philippine National Bank building in Escolta, Manila, containing the following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?" Plaintiff considered the above "defamatory and libelous per se for at the very least [it] amounts to an "act tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a juridical person."2The allegation of its being libelous was denied by defendants on the ground that such placards "containing the alleged writing were displayed during the strike on April 3 and April 4,1967 as a fair, legal labor strategy denouncing the lack of business foresight, incompetence, mismanagement, arbitrary and despotic acts of the Management to heed the legal and legitimate demands of the defendants, as a striking union, and against whom a strike was declared against the management of the Philippine National Bank"3and that moreover, "defendants, during the strike on April 3 to April 4, 1967, against the management of the Philippine National Bank, were only moved by good intention and justifiable motives and did not intend to injure any party not connected with the strike;"4constituting part "of their legal and fair labor strategy to enforce their demands" and to bolster their imputation of incompetence and arbitrariness of the Philippine National Bank management.5The lower court sustained such a defense and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.
The decision of the then Judge Conrado Vasquez was to dismiss the complaint. He could not discern any libelous imputation in the alleged offending words.ℒαwρhi৷Such a ruling finds additional support in the sympathetic approach followed by courts to inaccuracies and imprecision in language in the use of placards as part of peaceful picketing in labor controversies.
The facts as found by the lower court, admitted by plaintiff-appellant as correct, follow: "On April 3, 1967, defendant Philnabank Employees' Association (PEMA), a labor organization composed of the rank and file employees of the Philippine National Bank, declared a strike. During the said strike, which lasted up to the following day, members of the (PEMA) paraded and displayed placards in front of the PNB building at Escolta, Manila, one of which contained the following words: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?" It is an admitted fact that PCIB stands for plaintiff Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, while PNB refers to Philippine National Bank, and NIDC stands for National Investment Development Corporation, a subsidiary of the PNB."6To prove its claim for the recovery of damages both actual and exemplary, as well as for attorney's fees, plaintiff-appellant, as noted in the appealed decision, contended "that the writing on the placard in question is a baseless and malicious aspersion that the plaintiff was a party to a fraud, in that it was able to recoup on bad debts or other uncollected accounts by fraudulent, questionable and immoral transfer thereof to the PNB or NIDC.7Malice was likewise at- tributed to defendant labor union and its officers. Then the decision went on to state: "Plaintiff presented evidence to show that it is the largest 100% Filipino commercial bank in the Philippines; that at the time of the filing of the complaint, it had twenty-seven (27) branches all over the country and with foreign correspondent banks throughout the world; that the assets of the plaintiff amounted to P333,417,445.05 and it handles a quarterly volume of business amounting to P110,000,000.00; that it has several big companies among its clients; and that it has a reputation for honesty, reliability and trustworthiness, and has enjoyed domestic and international prominence and goodwill."8On that point, the lower court ruled: "The plaintiff has also miserably failed to prove any damage caused to it by the supposed libelous placard subject matter of this action. Plaintiff has admitted that its twenty-seven branches at the time of the filing of the complaint (May 6, 1967) increased to twenty-nine branches in August of 1967. The defendants have shown that the number further increased to thirty-three branches as of September, 1967. Plaintiff's networth likewise increased from P46,000,000.00 in March, 1967 to P53,000,000.00 in August, 1967. Although plaintiff's witness Jovino Valenzuela testified that. after the display of the questioned placard, the deposits of the plaintiff bank decreased, no record was presented to sustain this claim, which is even inconsistent with the admission of the same witness that the Bank's networth increased since that time and has continued to increase up to the time he testified. The same thing is true with the testimony of plaintiff's witness Edmundo Ledesma to the effect that due to the placard in question his confidence in the plaintiff was shaken, thereby causing him to deposit P50,000.00 with other banks instead of with the PCIB. He admmitted moreover that, as an exporter, it was safer to be opening accounts in several banks instead of in only one."9
As noted earlier, the decision must be affirmed.
1. The brief presented by the San Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin Law Offices is noted for its exhaustive and scholarly discussion of the law on libel relying on both the Philippine and American authorities. If the matter were viewed solely from what appeared in the placard, there is an element of plausibility in the assertion that while it was aimed at the Philippine National Bank, the way it was worded could reflect on a stranger to the controversy, plaintiff Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank. It is understandable if there were an affront to the sensibilities of its officials, They were right to guard its reputation earned after many years of laudable and creditable performance in the field of banking. It is, however, precisely because of its well-deserved reputation that what could at first glance be for the most fastidious hurtful to its prestige could, if viewed with calmness and objectivity, be considered, as it was characterized in the appealed decision, as lacking in "libelous imputation. "
2. There is, as already indicated, another reinforcement to such a mode of appraising the matter.ℒαwρhi৷There was a labor controversy resulting in a strike, fortunately lasting only for one day. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to picket. From the time of Mortera v. Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 decision,10this Court has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution. The latest case in point where such a principle was reaffirmed expressly is Associated Labor Union v. Gomez,11a 1980 decision. There is no mention of the other placards but it is not unlikely that to bolster its claim, mention was likewise made and in bold letters at that of such alleged failing of its management. That was the aim and intent as found by the lower court. That could not very well be disputed by plaintiff-appellant. Unfortunately, the offending imputation, but in the form of a question, was included. It was due to a former official of plaintiff-appellant's bank who was thereafter named as President of the Philippine National Bank. Should there be an automatic attitude of condemnation for such incident? If the realistic observation of Justice Frankfurter in Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago v. Meadowmoor Dairies12be heeded that labor disputes give rise to strong emotional response, then the decision reached by the lower court becomes even more acceptable. It is a fact of industrial life, both in the Philippines as in the United States, that in the continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. Such being the case. there is no affront either to reason or to the law in the complaint for libel being dismissed. In pricing reliance on the constitutional right of freedom of expression,13this Court once again makes manifest its adherence to the principle first announced by Justice Malcolm asponentein the leading case ofUnited States v. Bustos.14In no uncertain terms, it made clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits for libel, must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press. It cannot he too often said that Bustos was promulgated as far back as March 8, 1918. A doctrine analogous in character was enunciated by the United States Supreme Court only thirty-six years later inNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan.15
WHEREFORE,the appealed decision is affirmed. No costs.
Barredo, Aquino, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Footnotes