EN
BANC
GUILLERMO
B.
GUEVARA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 35357
February
2, 1932
-versus-
ROSAURO
ALMARIO,
MARCIANO ALMARIO,
LA
VANGUARDIA, INC.
AND MANUEL V. VILLAREAL,
Defendants
ROSAURO
ALMARIO
AND MARCIANO ALMARIO,
Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
MALCOLM,
J :
The
appeal taken in this
case from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of
Manila
necessitates the scrutiny of the proceedings to determine their
legality
and a decision as to the amount of the damages which should be allowed
the plaintiff.
On March 3, and March
16, 1927, La Vanguardia, a daily newspaper published in the City of
Manila,
printed two articles which mentioned Guillermo B. Guevara, the Fiscal
of
the City of Manila. The author of the articles was Rosauro Almario.
They
were clearly and flagrantly libelous. In addition to casting aspersions
on the plaintiff in a manner which need not be described, the articles
assailed his official integrity. They passed beyond the bounds of
legitimate
criticism of a public official to attack the individual and to indulge
in personalities.
A criminal action was
instituted, and after the evidence for the prosecution had been
received,
the accused Rosauro Almario was permitted to acknowledge authorship of
the defamatory articles and to change a plea of not guilty to a plea of
guilty, with certain qualifying explanations on his part. Thereupon, he
was sentenced to pay a fine of P400. Subsequently, Guillermo B. Guevara
instituted civil proceedings to recover a total of P100,000 by way of
damages.
Defendant Almario pleaded the truth and justifiable motives.
When the case was
called
for trial, the plaintiff submitted his evidence consisting exclusively
of the record, exhibits, and judgment in the criminal case. The
defendants
produced no evidence and contented themselves with filing a motion for
the dismissal of the case, which was denied. The trial judge thereafter
rendered judgment against Rosauro Almario for P5,000 as general damages
and an equal sum of P5,000 as punitive damages. The defendants La
Vanguardia
Incorporated, Marciano Almario, and Manuel V. Villareal were absolved
from
the complaint.
Certain minor points
can be disposed of quickly. For example, the action of the trial court
in refusing to grant Marciano Almario legal costs, and in ordering on
its
own initiative the amendment of the Complaint so that it contained
allegations
relating to the judgment of conviction in the criminal case, are
matters
which addressed themselves to the discretion of the trial judge and
should
not be interfered with here.
A major question has
to do with the action of the trial court in admitting evidence, over
the
objection of the defendants, consisting of proof filed in a previous
criminal
case. On this point, We find in our Code of Civil Procedure, Section
298,
Number 8, the provision that evidence may be received upon a trial of
"the
testimony of a witness deceased or out of the jurisdiction, or unable
to
testify, given in a former action between the same parties, relating to
the same matter." We have also the rule sanctioned by authoritative
decisions
that facts may be established by evidence thereof given on a former
trial,
provided the Court is satisfied: (1) That the party against whom the
evidence
is offered, or his privy, was a party on the former trial; (2) that the
issue is substantially the same in the two cases; (3) that the witness
who proposes to testify to the former evidence is able to state it with
satisfactory correctness; and (4) that a sufficient reason is shown why
the original witness is not produced. In the same connection, it is
well
settled that a judgment of conviction in a criminal proceeding cannot
be
admitted in evidence in a civil action. But a record in a criminal case
may be admitted by way of inducement, or to show a collateral fact.
[Ed.
A. Keller & Co. vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co. and
Collector
of Customs (1918), 38 Phil., 514; Chantangco vs. Abaroa (1910), 218 U.
S., 476; City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co. (1928), 52 Phil., 586].
Here, all other considerations to one side, there has not been any
sufficient
reason, in truth no reason at all, shown why the original witnesses in
the criminal case could not be produced in the civil case. A showing of
this character is necessary to justify the court in receiving evidence
given on a former trial. However, the general rule is qualified, and
properly
so, by permitting the fact of defendant's conviction to be proved in
the
civil action. [Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Company (1930), 55 Phil.
75].
We feel also that there would be no nullification of the rule to permit
further the record to disclose the express admission by the defendant
in
the criminal case of his authorship of the libel.
The controlling facts
to be deduced from all the foregoing are that an article which grossly
libeled Guillermo B. Guevara, Fiscal of the City of Manila, of which
Rosauro
Almario was the author, was published in the press; that on the
criminal
charge, Almario pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly, and that
neither the truth nor justifiable motives were established. But all
other
portions of the record in the criminal case, including the transcript
of
the testimony, are inadmissible in the civil record. Discarding the
personal
equation, for the plaintiff and the defendant alike are well known to
the
public, and considering the matter abstractly as We should, what should
be the measure of damages?
The Libel Law permits
the person libeled to recover the actual pecuniary damages sustained by
him, damages for injury to his feelings and reputation, and punitive
damages.
Otherwise stated, special damages have not been proved. Nominal damages
are not generally recognized under the civil law. Punitive damages have
been imposed in the criminal action. As to general or actual or
substantial
damages, as variously described, these arise from legal inferences and
need not be proved. So likewise is the good reputation of the plaintiff
presumed until the contrary is established by proper evidence.
The authorities offer
little aid in solving our problem, except as disclosing a tolerant
attitude
on the part of the appellate court — more likely to reduce damages for
libel than to increase them. The case of Worcester vs. Ocampo [(1912),
22 Phil., 42], which was taken as a model by the trial judge, is hardly
such, considering the marked differences in the two cases and the vast
amount of evidence to be found in the Worcester case, which is not to
be
found in the Guevara case. In other cases, offended parties have been
allowed
all the way from P50 to P5,000. [See Phee vs. La Vanguardia (1923), 45
Phil., 211, P50; Causin vs. Jakosalem [1905], 5 Phil., 155, P100;
Montinola
vs. Montalvo (1916), 34 Phil., 662, P200; Choa Tek Hee vs. Philippine
Publishing
Co. (1916), 34 Phil., 447, P300; Jimenez vs. Reyes (1914), 27 Phil.,
52,
P500; Sotelo Matti vs. Bulletin Publishing Co. (1918), 37 Phil., 562,
P500;
Oliver and Chamblise Oliver vs. La Vanguardia, Inc. (1925), 48 Phil.,
429,
P1,000; Perfecto vs. Contreras (1914), 28 Phil., 538, P2,500; Macleod
vs.
Philippine Publishing Co. (1909), 12 Phil., 427, P5,000].
But
for comparative purposes, the decisions are of little value for the
specific
amount of damages in a libel case must depend upon the facts of the
particular
case and the sound discretion of the Court.
When We come to give
direct application to the proven facts and the governing legal
principles,
We are not surprised to find about as great a variety of opinions as
there
are members participating in the discussion. The suggestions regarding
the amount of the damages have ranged all the way from P200 proposed by
the writer to P6,000 proposed by another member of the Court.
Eventually,
after an exchange of impressions, a majority of the Court have reached
the conclusion that the plaintiff should be awarded damages in the sum
of P1,000.
The various errors
assigned will be overruled except as to the first and sixth on the
appeal
of Rosauro Almario, which will be partially sustained, with the result
that the judgment appealed from will be modified by condemning the
defendant
Rosauro Almario to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,000 and the costs of
both instances.
Avanceña, C.J.,
Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur. |