SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
G.R.
No. 184315 (Alfonso T. Yuchengco v.
The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, Roberto Coyiuto, Jr., Neal Cruz,
Ernesto Tolentino, Noel Cabrera, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, Rodney P.
Diola, Raul Valino and Thelma San Juan)
Promulgated:
November
28, 2011
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SEPARATE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING
OPINION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
I concur with the well-written Resolution
of Mr. Justice Diosdado M. Peralta finding respondents liable for damages,
attorneys fees and legal costs. I beg to differ, however, with respect to the proposed
reduction of the damages awarded in Our November 25, 2009 Decision.
Let us recall the antecedents:
The Makati City Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 136, rendered the November 8, 2002 Decision, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. On the First Cause of Action, ordering defendants Chronicle Publishing, Neil H. Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino, Noel Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, Raul Valino and Rodney Diola to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally:
a. the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as moral damages; and
b. the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
2. On the Second Cause of Action, ordering defendants Roberto Coyiuto, Jr. and Chronicle Publishing to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally:
a. the amount of Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) as moral damages; and
b. the amount of Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
3. On the Third Cause of Action, ordering all defendants to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally, the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as attorneys fee and legal costs.
On appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA) rendered a Decision dated March 18, 2008 affirming in toto the November 8, 2002 RTC
decision.
Acting on respondents plea for
reconsideration, the CA issued on August 28, 2008 an Amended Decision reversing
its March 18, 2008 Decision and dismissed the Amended Complaint of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated March 18, 2008 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the court a quo dated November 8, 2002 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Amended Complaint for Damages against the defendants-appellants is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.
On a petition for review interposed
by petitioner before this Court, a judgment was rendered on November 25, 2009,
this time annulling the CA Amended Decision dated August 28, 2008 and
reinstating the November 8, 2002 decision of the Makati City RTC with
modification on the amount of damages and attorneys fees and legal costs. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76995 dated 28
August 2008, which reversed on Motion for Reconsideration the 18 March 2008
Decision of the same Court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. On the First Cause of Action, ordering defendants Chronicle Publishing, Neil H. Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino, Noel Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, Raul Valino and Rodney Diola to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally:
a. the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as moral damages; and
b. the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as exemplary damages;
2. On the Second Cause of Action, ordering defendants Roberto Coyuito, Jr. and Chronicle Publishing to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally:
a. the amount of Twenty-Five Million Pesos (P25,000,000.00) as moral damages; and
b. the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
3. On the Third Cause of Action, ordering all defendants to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally, the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as attorneys fee and legal costs.
Costs against respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration dated January 15, 2010 which this Court denied on March 3, 2010.
Later, respondent Coyiuto, Jr. filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration with attached Supplemental Motion, both dated March 17,
20l0. The Court issued a Resolution on
April 21, 2010, recalling the denial of respondents motion for reconsideration
and entertained the aforesaid Supplemental Motion. The incident is now ripe for resolution.
I agree with Justice Peralta
that the prayer for the reversal of the November 25, 2009 Decision of this
Court should be denied, the motion for reconsideration having raised
substantially the same issues and arguments already discussed and scrutinized
in the text of said decision.
The
majority, however, finds that the damages awarded to petitioner in Our November
25, 2009 Decision appear to be too excessive.
Justice Peralta, for the majority, argues that moral damages are not
intended to impose a penalty to the wrongdoer, neither to enrich the claimant
at the expense of the defendant. Thus, he recommends that under the first
cause of action, the moral damages should be reduced from PhP 2 million to PhP
1 million. Under the second cause of action, he proposes to reduce the moral
damages from PhP 25 million to PhP 10 million. With respect to exemplary
damages, he explains that said damages are imposed not to enrich one party or
impoverish another but to serve as deterrent against or as a negative incentive
to curb socially deleterious actions, citing Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lianga Bay and Community
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.[1] He then proceeds to reduce the exemplary
damages from PhP 500,000 to PhP 200,000 under the first cause of action for
consistency of action and from PhP 10,000,000 to PhP 1,000,000 under the second
cause of action. Anent the third cause of action, he suggests the reduction of
attorneys fees and costs from PhP 1,000,000 to PhP 200,000.
I
submit that the damages awarded in Our November 25, 2009 Decision be
maintained.
The
facts and circumstances of the case have not changed since November 25, 2009.
There were no supervening events that occurred since then. To say that the
damages awarded to petitioner were not excessive on November 25, 2009 and then
say that they are excessive now defies logic. The amendment of the November 25,
2009 Decision would open the court to speculation and even intrigue, more so
considering that the January 15, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration of respondent
was first denied on March 3, 2010 and later the denial was recalled on April
21, 2010.
The
moral and exemplary damages awarded to petitioner in Our November 25, 2009
Decision would be adequate recompense
for the damage that Coyiuto has inflicted upon petitioner as well as the injury
to the latters reputation, as a direct result of the publication of the
subject articles. Moreover, it will serve as an effective deterrent against the
commission of similar acts in the future.
Indeed, there is no
hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of
damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.[2] Much weight is placed on the social standing
of the aggrieved party in the calibration of the fair and reasonable amount of
the award of moral damages.[3]
Jurisprudence, even
in other jurisdictions, is clear that the character and social standing of the
defendant, as well as of the plaintiff, may be considered in estimating the amount
of damages.[4] Evidence may be adduced as to the social and financial status of
the parties as basis for the grant of damages.[5]
Moreover, other
factors like the degree of mental anguish, humiliation and mental suffering
have to be considered in fixing the amount of damages, thus:
There is no exact measure of damages to be awarded in an action for defamation, but it is within the special province of the jury to determine and fix the award. The tortfeasor is responsible for all the actual consequences reasonably to be anticipated from the publication, even though they are not proved specifically, and in determining the compensation the law looks to the consequences that may logically be expected to result therefrom. In awarding damages, many factors are taken into consideration, including the nature of the imputation made; the circumstances surrounding the publication of the defamatory words, the extent of the publication, although, in an action against a newspaper, this is not the sole factor to be considered; the quantum of mental anguish traceable thereto; the plaintiffs reputation; and the general status and position of the parties. x x x
General damages for defamation include injury to the feelings, reputation, or business of the person defamed, mental suffering, humiliation, anguish, and other like injuries capable of money evaluation.
While the term `special damage
more frequently imports a pecuniary injury, it generally is held that recovery
of such damages may be had for loss of a temporal or material advantage of any
kind, such as injury to personal status x x x.[6]
After a
review of the evidence extant on record, the Court concluded that the spiteful
and patently untruthful nature of the contents of the subject articles, the
timing and frequency of the attacks, the fact that said articles were published
close to the stockholders meeting of Oriental Petroleum, and the fact that
respondent Coyiuto deliberately utilized his newspaper to wage war against his
business rival (petitioner herein), taken together, undoubtedly justify the damages
awarded petitioner.
Respondent Coyiuto clearly abused his right when he took undue
advantage of his position as owner and Chairman of the Board of Chronicle
Publishing and used The Manila Chronicle
to launch a personal vendetta against the petitioner who was his rival
in the insurance business. As this Court ruled in its
November 25, 2009 Decision, Coyiuto did not only cause the publication of
articles that would paint petitioner in a bad light, worse, Coyiuto was even
portrayed as the underdog and petitioner the greedy capitalist:
As earlier explained, as correctly found by the trial
court, even the timing of the
publication of these subject articles is highly suspicious inasmuch as the
subject libelous articles came out in the Manila Chronicle, a newspaper owned
and under the control of [respondent] Coyiuto, around November to December of
1993, a couple of months prior to the January stockholders meeting of Oriental
Corporation. From this, it is logical to
conclude that the publication of the subject defamatory articles defaming the
good name and reputation of [petitioner] is but a part of [a] grand scheme to
create a negative image of [petitioner] so as to negatively affect
[petitioners] credibility to the public, more particularly, to the then
stockholders of Oriental Corporation. Worth noting also is the fact
that the subject articles did not only portray [petitioner] in a bad
light. Curiously, in these articles, [respondent] Coyiuto, a known
rival of [petitioner], was portrayed as the underdog, the David and
[petitioner] as the Goliath in their battle for control over Oriental
Corporation. This does not escape the Courts attention. (Decision dated November 25,
2009, pp. 24-25)
Coyiuto is, therefore, liable for the
prejudice suffered by petitioner under the abuse-of-rights doctrine for having
caused the publication of the subject articles in the newspaper which he owns
and controls.
More
relevant still is the evidence on record of the high prominence and stature of
the aggrieved party (petitioner) as found by the RTC and as quoted in this Courts Decision
dated November 25, 2009:
During the trial, the plaintiff himself, ALFONSO T.
YUCHENGCO, testified that prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Japan, he
was the chairman of various business organizations notably: Benguet Corporation
(Benguet), Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation (RCBC), Bank of America Savings Bank, House of
Investments, Inc., Dole Philippines and Philippines Fuji Xerox
Corporation. He was also the President
of the Philippine Ambassadors; chairman or vice president of Bantayog ng Bayan;
and chairman of AY Foundation, Inc. He
was appointed Philippine Ambassador to Peoples Republic of
This Court in its Decision dated November 25, 2009 also took
notice of the prominence and stature of petitioner, i.e., that he was at that time appointed as Presidential Adviser on
Foreign Affairs with Cabinet rank and, as found by the CA, has held other
positions, such as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations
with the rank of Ambassador (November 2001-December 2002); Presidential Special
Envoy to China, Japan and Korea (2001); Presidential Assistant on APEC Matters
with Cabinet Rank (1998-2000); Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
the Republic of the Philippines to the Peoples Republic of China (PROC)
(1986-1988); and Chairman, Council of Private Sector Advisors to the Philippine
Government on the Spratlys Issue (Marine and Archipelagic Development Policy
Group [1995-1998]).[7] Undeniably, the stature and prominence of the petitioner
underscores his high financial standing in society.
Judicial notice is likewise taken of
the fact that the
parties involved are both high net worth individuals. Respondent Coyiuto owns
and controls a publishing company (Chronicle Publishing), is a known steep
rival of petitioner in the insurance industry and was, at the time in question,
battling with the latter to gain control over Oriental Petroleum. In the latest Forbes magazine,[8] Coyiuto placed as the 19th
richest in the
Even the
parties financial condition has been accepted to bear relevance in the
determination of the damages to be awarded the aggrieved party in an action for
libel or defamation, thus:
In some jurisdictions, matters to
be considered in aggravation of damages include the defendants social status,
and his financial condition. The plaintiff is entitled to show his rank and
condition in life, his occupancy of a public position, his marital status, and
according to some authorities, his good reputation.[9]
Clearly, a lesser amount of damages, while acceptable to
individuals of average means, would, at best, be a slap on the wrist for
Coyiuto, and will have no deterring effect against a similar violation.[10] The
financial worth of Coyiuto is, therefore, relevant in determining the amount of
moral damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.
More importantly, the total amount of PhP 25 million as moral
damages and PhP 10 million as exemplary damages previously awarded to petitioner
by this Court in its November 25, 2009 Decision would certainly not even
assuage the mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
sleepness nights, and social humiliation and embarrassment suffered by
petitioner, especially in the insurance industry where he was prominently and
predominantly engaged at the time of the publication. Nevertheless, We have
already ruled on the amount of damages in Our November 25, 2009 Decision.
Adjudication must reach finality at some point in time. It is time to write
finis to this case for damages.
I submit that We
maintain Our November 25, 2009 Decision.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] 425 Phil. 511, 524 (2002).
[7] Decision dated November 25, 2009, p. 28.
[10] It must also be shown that the defendant will be effectively deterred by the award, and for this reason evidence of defendants wealth is usually admitted in a libel action. [Punitive Damages in Libel, Fordham Law Review (Vol 45, p. 1386, (1977)] If the jury is not free to adjust the amount of the punitive damage awarded to the character of the defendant's wrong, the award loses its value as a warning that particularly outrageous conduct will be severely punished. [Punitive Damages in Libel, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 45, p. 1391, (1977)]