Tuesday, November 27, 2007 Malilong: Libel By Frank Malilong The Other Side
THIS 2005 case should be a reminder to opinion makers to go slow when they’re not sure of the facts.
Radio station dzRC in Legaspi City and two of its broadcasters were sued for libel by the Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine for claiming in their radio program that the owners were greedy and their school was a dumping ground for garbage of moral and physical misfits who become liabilities rather than assets of society upon graduation.
In their answer, the defendants contended that the broadcasts were not malicious, that the radiomen were only doing their duty to air the students’ gripes, and that there was no evidence that ill will or spite motivated their comments.
The Supreme Court held all three liable and ordered them to pay moral damages of P150,000.
The court said that the broadcasts were not the result of straight reporting and were therefore not covered by the “privilege of neutral reportage,” which applies only if the report of a falsehood is accurate and disinterested.
The court likewise dismissed the defendants’ claim that their case was covered by the doctrine of fair comment under the famous Borjal case (where then President Aquino sued but failed to convict three Inquirer journalists for reporting that she hid under her bed while Malacañang was under siege). Unlike in the case of Borjal’s newspaper articles, the broadcasts were not based on established facts, the court said.
It also noted that although defendants claimed that they were motivated by consistent reports of students and parents complaining against plaintiff, they have not presented them nor the written complaint or petition. In fact, the court said, they were not able to even give a single name of the supposed complainants.
“To accept this defense of defendants is too dangerous because it could give license to the media to malign people and establishments based on flimsy excuses that there were reports to them although they could not satisfactorily establish it.”
Such laxity, it said, would encourage careless and irresponsible broadcasting “which is inimical to public interests.”
The radio station, by the way, was held liable because it allowed the radiomen to broadcast even if they were not accredited by the Kapisanan ng Mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas. It showed, said the Supreme Court, that the station did not exercise due diligence in the selection of its employees. This sounds familiar, does it?
