Tuesday, April 15, 2008 RTC upholds dismissal of damages suit guv filed vs. broadcaster
THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) has upheld the dismissal of the damages suit Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia earlier filed against broadcaster Leo Lastimosa.
In a single page order, Judge Leopoldo Cañete said the governor did not raise new issues when she filed the motion for reconsideration against his earlier order of dismissal.
“Everything is but a reiteration of what had already been considered, evaluated and passed upon by the court,” Cañete, presiding over the RTC in Barili, wrote.
Moreover, he said, the laws the governor’s camp is citing – Article 19 of the New Civil Code – is “a law of general application and a law of procedure.”
He maintained it cannot prevail over the citations he considered when he issued the order of dismissal.
In a ruling dated Dec. 14, 2007, Cañete dismissed the damages suit Garcia filed against the broadcaster and newspaper columnist on the basis of venue.
The governor filed the case in Barili town and justified the move by the fact that she is a voter of and has a house in Du-manjug, which is still part of the Barili court’s jurisdiction.
Dismissal
Lastimosa, for his part, asked for the dismissal of the case and argued that while the governor might have a residence in the town, she is actually residing elsewhere.
He said picking the venue constituted harassment to the journalist who has to travel to Barili every time there is a hearing.
Cañete’s order of dismissal did not resolve the question of where the governor’s actual residence is and whether she can file her suit there.
He instead cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Time Inc. v. Reyes.
While the ruling highlighted the need to avoid “unnecessary harassment” of journalists, Cañete’s ruling dwelt more on how the governor’s choice of Barili could impair public service.
He said he cannot give due course to the suit because he needs “to protect the interest of the public service.”
Limitation
“The limitation of the choices of venue, as introduced into the Penal Code through its amendment by Republic Act 4363, was intended to minimize or limit the filing of out-of-town libel suits to protect an alleged offender from hardships, inconvenience and harassment and, furthermore, to protect the interest of the public service where one of the offended parties is a public officer,” Cañete quoted.
“Stated otherwise, 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.
The governor might be called in to testify in court, for example.
“Considering her very hectic schedule as the chief executive of the Province and taking into account the case load of this court of close to 5,000 cases more or less, the conclusion is inescapable that she cannot finish testifying in this case in a setting of two or three and even more, thus prejudicing the interest of the public service,” he said.
Inconvenient
The case may be re-filed here in Cebu City, where the Provincial Capitol is based and where it will be less inconvenient for the governor to attend the hearings. She won’t have to leave her office long, the judge pointed out.
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. (KNR)
