Libel Case: Manila Chronicle vs Yuchengco

SC Reduces Award of Damages to Tycoon in Libel Case

sc.judiciary.gov.ph

The Supreme Court has stood pat on its ruling finding the owner and several staff members of the now defunct publication Manila Chronicle guilty of libel for publishing a series of defamatory articles against businessman Alfonso T. Yuchengco but reduced considerably the amount of damages it had earlier awarded.

In a 14-page resolution penned by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the Court’s Special Third Division ordered The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation (Chronicle Publishing), which owned Manila Chronicle, together with publisher Roberto Coyiuto, Jr. to pay Yuchengco P11million, while writers Neil H. Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino, Noel Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, Raul Valino, and Rodney Diola P1.2 million, plus P200,000 as litigation costs, or a total of P12.4 million in damages. The amount is around a third of the PhP38.5 million total it had previously awarded in its November 25, 2009 decision.

The Court found as “too excessive” the original amount of its award of moral damages, hence, it reduced the same, as well as the exemplary damages.  The Court held that moral damages “are given to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering” and “should be reasonably approximate to the extent of the hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done.”  Exemplary damages, it further held, “are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.”

In its 2009 decision, the Court had found malice in the series of articles published in Manila Chronicle in November and December 1993 which referred to Yuchengco as a Marcos crony, an “unfair and uncaring employer,” and a “corporate raider.” The articles also alleged that Yuchengo engaged in unsound and immoral business practices for illegally acquiring his holdings in Benguet Corporation. Yuchengo was also accused of inducing Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation to violate provisions of the General Banking Act as well as to disobey lawful orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Court had noted that the articles were published a couple of months before the stockholders’ meeting of Oriental Corporation, control over which both Coyiuto and Yuchengco were battling for. As the articles portrayed Coyiuto as “an underdog and his rival Yuchengco as the greedy Goliath,” the Court had held that the publication of the articles constituted an orchestrated attack to undermine the reputation of Yuchengco while putting Coyiuto in a positive light to influence the public, particularly the stockholders of Oriental Corporation.  The Court had also noted that Chronicle was unable to present evidence showing that it verified the truth nor made efforts to take Yuchengco’s side of the story, neither was it able to rebut Yuchengco’s categorical denial of the paper’s allegations. (GR No. 184315, Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., November 28, 2011)

Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph