Jimenez vs. Cabangbang 17 SCRA 876 GR.NO.

L-15905 August 3, 1966

PARTIES:

PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS: Nicanor T. Jimenez, et al. DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE: Bartolome Cabangbang PONENTE: Concepcion, C. J.

FACTS:

On November 14, 1958, defendant Cabangbang published an open letter to the President in several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. The publication talked about the alleged operational plans of the then Secretary of National Defense to launch his presidential career in 1961 elections. Cabangbang's letter mentioned the names of Nicanor Jimenes and his comrades as subordinates to the 'Planners' behind the alleged operation. They sued Cabangbang for the crime of libel and sought financial compensation for the damages caused by the letter. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the letter was a privileged form of communication and that it was not libellous.

ISSUE:

Whether the contested publication could be classified as a privileged form of communication under the provisions of sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution.

RULING:

No. Under the provisions of sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution, "speech or debate therein" only refers to the utterances made by Congress members in the performance of their official duties, such as delivering speeches, making statements, or casting votes in the Congressional hall while the same is in session. It could also refer to the introduction of bills in Congress, whether it is session or not, and other acts performed by Congress members in their

official capacity whether there was a session or not, whether inside or outside the premises of one's office.

In the case at bar, the Court ruled that Cabangbang's letter cannot be classified as a privileged form of communication because it was published during a time when the Congress was not in session. Moreover, the defendant was not performing his official duty as either a member of Congress when he intended the letter to be published. Therefore, the open letter was not privileged. Because of these reasons, Cabangbang's open letter cannot be classified as a privileged form of communication.