Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
FEDERICO “TOTO” G.R. No. 161422
NATIVIDAD,
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus -
QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW TINGA,
and
AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
(MTRCB), represented by its
Chairperson MA. CONSOLIZA T.
LAGUARDIA; Spouses THELMA J.
CHIONG and DIONISIO F. CHIONG; Promulgated:
and MARICHU S. JIMENEA,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
In
this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner Federico
“Toto” Natividad seeks the reversal of the
The Facts
At
the center of this petition is the movie Butakal
(Sugapa Sa Laman). The movie is allegedly
based on the true story of two sisters, Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong of
On
The
MTRCB gave the movie an R-Strictly for Adults rating and issued its permit on
On
Immediately,
then MTRCB Chairperson Armida P.E. Siguion-Reyna asked Natividad to submit Butakal to a special screening in the
presence of the Chiongs. Natividad
readily agreed, and the special screening was held.
Thereafter, Siguion-Reyna informed the Chiongs that the
MTRCB stood by its previous approval of the movie and only a restraining order
from the proper court would stop its public exhibition starting
On
The
RTC ruled in favor of private respondents.
It made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO and ordered
the MTRCB to cancel the permit “to show Butakal
on television or any theater in the
On
On
The Chiongs filed an opposition to the omnibus motion. The MTRCB, for its part, filed a
Manifestation/Motion alleging that it merely fulfilled its mandate under
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986 when it issued Natividad’s permit. Eventually, in an Order dated
Butakal was
previewed by the RTC during the hearing on
Because the TRO would expire on
In the afternoon of September 27, 1999, Natividad received
a letter from the MTRCB informing him that the Office of the President (OP) had
directed the MTRCB Chairperson to designate a Committee of Board Members to
undertake a second review and to determine if there was a basis for allegations that the film contains scenes
that were libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of the Chiong
sisters and surviving relatives, and if after review, the Board, in its
judgment, shall find basis for the complaint, to impose such
penalties/sanctions in accordance with the provisions of PD 1986.[5]
The Board recalled the Permit to Exhibit and directed
Natividad to submit a second review.
Taken
aback by the MTRCB’s inordinately swift recall of the permit to exhibit, even
while the matter of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. Q-99-38647
remained unresolved, Natividad inquired why there was a recall and discovered
that on
Also,
in response to the MTRCB’s letter, Natividad filed a manifestation with the
MTRCB informing the board that he was not inclined to submit his film for a
second review because the decision of the first review committee was
final. He added that if he did, this might
be misunderstood as submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the MTRCB on the
issues brought by the Chiongs before the OP.
His refusal constrained the MTRCB Chairperson to write Natividad to ask
him to explain in writing why no sanctions should be imposed against him. Natividad complied.
While
Civil Case No. Q-99-38647 was pending resolution by the RTC, the Chiongs subsequently
filed two separate pleadings: (1) an Amended Petition where they deleted the
MTRCB as a respondent and instead impleaded new respondents, Kenjie Watanabe,
Alvin Basilio, and Willie Laconsay, and withdrew their prayer for preliminary
injunction; and (2) a petition to inhibit the judge for alleged bias in favor
of Natividad.
In
an Order dated
The
Chiongs moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied.
Simultaneous
with the filing of their motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. Q-99-38647,
the Chiongs filed with the MTRCB a Complaint docketed as MTRCB Administrative
Case No. 25-99 against Natividad, Watanabe, Basilio, and Laconsay, asking the
MTRCB to prohibit the exhibition of Butakal
or any portion of the film in all forms or venues in the
Natividad,
et al. in their Answer interposed
that (1) the MTRCB had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the controversy; (2)
the complainants committed forum shopping; (3) the earlier decision of the
MTRCB granting a permit to exhibit Butakal
had become final and executory; and (4) the recall order of the permit violated
their right to due process.[7]
On
After
the surrender of the master copy of Butakal,
Natividad later requested that the MTRCB release the master copy. The MTRCB refused explaining that the video
tape of Butakal had to remain with
the MTRCB until and after the administrative case filed by the Chiongs is
terminated because the video tape was material evidence in the administrative
case.
Aggrieved,
on
The petition was denied by the CA in
a decision promulgated on
According to the CA, the MTRCB orders
denying Chiongs’ complaint, while simultaneously withholding the permit to
exhibit Butakal, were merely interlocutory because
the main case where the subject orders were issued, Administrative Case No.
25-99, was not resolved. Being
interlocutory, said orders may not be the subject of a special civil action for
certiorari. The CA cited Emergency Loan Pawnshop Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[8] and
explained that the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer to the
complaint and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion to
dismiss, proceed to trial, and in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the
entire case by appeal.
The CA elucidated further that the
rule admits of exceptions, namely: (1)
when the impugned orders were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction; (2)
where there is patent grave abuse of discretion; or (3) appeal would not prove
to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an appeal would not relieve the
defendant from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining
the plaintiffs’ baseless action and compelling the defendant needlessly to go
through a protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by another futile
case. The CA opined that in this case, Natividad failed to show that this case
fell under any of the aforementioned exceptions.
Regarding the allegation of grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the MTRCB, the CA ruled that there was no such
grave abuse when the MTRCB deferred the resolution of Administrative Case No.
25-99, because it found that there were at that time criminal cases involving
the rape of the Chiong sisters pending in the Court, and the decision on these
cases would materially affect any resolution by the MTRCB in Administrative
Case No. 25-99.
As to the alleged lack of
jurisdiction of the MTRCB to entertain Administrative Case No. 25-99, the CA said
that PD 1986, as amended, categorically conferred jurisdiction on the MTRCB to
act on cases such as Administrative Case No. 25-99. The pertinent provisions state:
SEC.
3. Powers and Functions.—The BOARD
shall have the following functions, powers and duties:
x x x x
c) To approve or
disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation,
exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or
television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity
materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which in the judgment of the
BOARD applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are
objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs,
injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or
with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence [or] of a
wrong crime, such as but not limited to:
x x x x
vi) Those which are
libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether
living or dead; and
vii) Those which
may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain
to matters which are sub-judice in nature
Unsatisfied,
Natividad filed this petition before us.
The Issues
Natividad
alleges the following errors committed by the CA:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MOVIE “BUTAKAL (SUGAPA SA LAMAN)”
IS A TRUE TO LIFE DEPICTION OF THE CELEBRATED RAPE-SLAY CASE OF JACQUELINE AND
MARIJOY CHIONG OF CEBU CITY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS SO
AS THERE WAS NO HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE MOVIE TELEVISION REVIEW AND
CLASSIFICATION BOARD IN MTRCB ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 25-99.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT MOVIE TELEVISION
REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND/OR WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT
LIFTING/DISSOLVING THE RECALL ORDER EVEN AFTER IT HAS NOT GIVEN DUE COURSE TO
THE PETITION.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT MOVIE TELEVISION REVIEW
AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN CONFISCATING THE VHS COPY OF THE FILM
“BUTAKAL” FOR EVIDENTIARY PURPOSES WHEN THE PETITION WAS NOT GIVEN DUE COURSE
NOT TO MENTION THAT PROPRIETARY RIGHTS OVER THE FILM BELONGS TO PETITIONER
NATIVIDAD.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is not meritorious.
Did the CA gravely err in holding that the movie Butakal (Sugapa Sa Laman) is a true to
life depiction of the celebrated rape-slay case of Jacqueline and Marijoy
Chiong of Cebu City even without a hearing by the MTRCB to determine if it was
so?
As far as this Court is concerned, the first issue raised
by Natividad, essentially a factual question, is irrelevant to the resolution
of this case. The second and third
issues raised by petitioner are far more grave and certainly relevant to the
resolution of this case, concerning as it does the jurisdiction of the MTRCB
and questions regarding the proper exercise of the latter’s power.
Furthermore,
settled is the rule that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the CA,
Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with
the Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition
shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.[9]
Questions
of fact are not proper subjects for this Court unless there is clear and
convincing proof that the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of
facts; or when the CA failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of
substance which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion;
and when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the
light of the evidence on record.[10]
In this petition, Natividad has failed to convince this
Court to depart from this well-established doctrine.
On the second issue, did the CA gravely err and abuse its
discretion when it did not lift the recall order considering that when the
MTRCB did not give due course and dismiss the Chiongs’ complaint, it had in
effect resolved the issue that the film was allegedly libelous to the Chiong
sisters?
No. Quoted below is
the MTRCB ruling:
WHEREAS,
Petitioners have filed with this office on 25 October 1999 a complaint against
the respondents, all involved in the making of the film entitled “BUTAKAL,”
alleging among others, that the said film constitutes libel to the petitioners
and to Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong, and praying that the respondents, jointly
and severally, and their agents and successors-in-interests, be prohibited and
banned from exhibiting and showing the said movie or any portion thereof thru
any forum or venue such as movie theaters, television programs, video programs
private and public, and print media, in the Philippines as well as abroad;
WHEREAS,
a HEARING AND ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE (Committee) was created by MTRCB Chairman
Armida P.E. Siguion Reyna through Special Order No. 99-73, with the undersigned
as members, to look into the allegations contained in the said petition;
WHEREAS,
the Committee has taken notice of two criminal cases docketed as Criminal Cases
Nos. CBU-45303 and 45304 both entitled “People
of the Philippines versus Francisco Juan Larrañaga @ ‘Paco’, et al., accused”
which was tried on the merits and decided by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu,
Branch 7, 7th Judicial Region, said cases now under appeal under
[sic] the Supreme Court;
NOW
THEREFORE, The Board, through this Committee, rules that the subject complaint of petitioners cannot be given due
course while the above-mentioned cases are still pending, the decision of the
Supreme Court on the said cases having material bearing on the subject
complaint before this Board; and affirms the Order of Recall issued by this
Board on 27 September 1999. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear
that the MTRCB did not dismiss the Chiongs’ complaint; rather, it suspended the
proceedings because whether or not Butakal
was libelous or defamatory depended on the decision rendered by this Court in People v. Larrañaga.[11]
On the third issue.
Did the MTRCB commit grave abuse of discretion when it confiscated the
VHS copy of the film?
It did not. The
pertinent provision of PD 1986 is Sec. 3 which states:
SEC.
3. Powers and Functions.—The BOARD
shall have the following functions, powers and duties:
x x
x x
c) To approve or
disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation,
exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or
television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity
materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which in the judgment of the
BOARD applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are
objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs,
injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or
with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence [or] of a
wrong crime, such as but not limited to:
x x x x
vi) Those which are
libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether
living or dead; and
vii) Those which
may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain
to matters which are sub-judice in nature.
Furthermore, the MTRCB Rules of
Procedure in the Conduct of Hearings for the Violations of PD 1986 provides:
Rule
VIII
HEARINGS
SECTION 1. Who May Conduct Hearings – Hearings of the Board may be conducted
by the Chairman, or, if the respondent or alleged offender does not admit
guilt, by a Hearing and Adjudication Committee composed of at least three (3)
Board Members designated by the Chairman, at least one of whom shall be a
member of the Philippine bar. Any
hearing conducted by the Chairman or the Committee shall be deemed as a hearing
before the Board.
x x
x x
SEC.
7. Preventive Seizure, Suspension, or
Closure – In the interest of the public and on finding of probable cause,
the Chairman may order, pending hearing and final disposition of the case, the
preventive seizure of offending motion pictures and related publicity
materials, and/or suspension of the permit or permits involved, and/or closure
of the erring moviehouse, television network, cable TV station, or
establishment. The Chairman may also
order the temporary dismantling or tearing down of public signs and billboards
that are in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1986 and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations. Temporary orders
thus issued shall not exceed more than twenty (20) days from the date of
issuance.
The above provisions make it clear that
the MTRCB cannot preventively seize the master copy more than 20 days. Thus, the MTRCB erred when it seized and
retained the master copy of Butakal for
more than 20 days.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The MTRCB is ordered to return the master
copy of Butakal to petitioner and to
resolve the administrative complaint filed by the Chiongs with dispatch. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Presiding Justice and First Division Chairman Cancio C. Garcia (a retired member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Danilo B. Pine.
[2] People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos.
138874-75,
[3] People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos.
138874-75,
[4] Records, p. 127.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] G.R.
No. 129184,
[9] Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec.1.
[10] Bricenio v. People, G.R. No. 157804,
[11] G.R.
Nos. 138874-75,