Saturday, February 02, 2008 Gwen asks court to reconsider dismissal of libel case v. Leo
BECAUSE Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia is not desk-bound at the Capitol and is often out to visit constituents in the towns, it will be no hardship for her to pursue in Barili her case against a broadcaster, her lawyer said.
The governor asked Barili Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Leopoldo Cañete to reconsider his dismissal of the damage suit she filed against broadcaster and columnist Leo Lastimosa.
In her motion for reconsideration, Garcia, through lawyer Rory Jon Sepulveda, argued that the resolution of the court, which questioned the choice of venue, “is erroneous.”
“Clearly, the specialized rule of venue provided for in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, which applies only to criminal and civil action for damages arising from the crime of libel committed by means of writing, finds no application,” said Sepulveda.
Justification
Sepulveda, Capitol Consultant on information and revenue generation, also said that in the present case, what is being sought is not the civil liability arising from a crime.
“It is a civil liability arising from a special tort commonly known as abuse of right or the violation of Article 19 of the New Civil Code,” he added.
Sepulveda said they resorted to the special tort, considering that Lastimosa’s justification was his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press.
Sepulveda also said that Garcia’s decision to file the case in Barili is in accordance with Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, because the court has jurisdiction over her place of residence, Dumanjug.
Dismissal
In his four-page ruling dated Dec. 14, Judge Cañete gave this reason for dismissing the case: the need “to protect the interest of the public service.” Barili is about 61 kilometers southwest of Cebu City.
“If the case at bar (is) allowed to go on before this court, definitely the discharge of the official functions and duties of the plaintiff as governor of Cebu will be affected and hampered,” he explained.
But Sepulveda argued, “Attending the case in Barili will not hamper the plaintiff’s discharge of official functions.” (KNT)
