Case Digest: Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, INC.,

CATALINO P. ARAFILES, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., ROMY MORALES, MAX BUAN, JR., and MANUEL C. VILLAREAL JR., respondents
G.R No. 150256.       March 25, 2004

FACTS:

About 2:00 am on 14 April 1987, while respondent Morales, a reporter of People’s Journal Tonight, was at the Western Police District (WPD) Headquarters along United Nations Avenue, Manila, Emelita Dispuig (Emelita), an employee of the National Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (NIAS) lodged a complaint against petitioner, a NIAS director, for forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape before the then on duty Partolman Benito Chio at the General assignments sectionof the headquarters.

In the presence of Morales, Emelita executed a sworn statement narrating the events surrounding the reported offenses committed against her by petitioner. Following the execution of the sworn statement, Patrolman Chio made such in the Police Blotter which was perused by Morales. Morales, thereupon, personally interviewed Emelita for the purpose of reporting the same in the next issue of People’s Journal Tonight. By his claim, he, after the interview, tried to contact Arafiles at NIAS office to verify Emelita’s story but failed, the office having already closed. Morales then wrote an account about Emelita’s complaint and submitted it to his editor. That same day, 14 April 1987, Morales’ report appeared as headline on People’s Journal Tonight.

About a year following the publication, petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against respondents for damages arising therefrom. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the case alleging that the news item is part of the freedom of the press but the petitioner believes that it is grossly malicious and overly sensationalized reporting. The court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff but was reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals citing the doctrine of pair comment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the publication of the news item was not attended with malice to free respondents of liability for damages.

HELD:

Every citizen has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but it was not considered that the respondents, under the circumstances of this case, had violated said right or abused the freedom of the press. The newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance so as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters and usually have to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to appoint of suppression for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.