G.R. No.

184315 November 28, 2011 SUBJECT ARTICLES IN THE COMPLAINT FALL WITHIN THE
CONCEPT OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION.
ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO, Petitioner,
vs. C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT PETITIONER
NOEL CABRERA, GERRY ZARAGOZA, DONNA GATDULA, IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC FIGURE.7
RODNEY P. DIOLA, RAUL VALINO, THELMA SAN JUAN and
ROBERT COYIUTO, JR.,Respondents. On November 25, 2009, this Court rendered a Decision partially
granting the petition.
R E S O L U T I ON
Respondents later filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
PERALTA, J.: January 15, 2010, which the Court denied in the
Resolution8 dated March 3, 2010.
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration 1 dated January
15, 2010, filed by the respondents, and the Supplemental Motion Meanwhile, respondent Coyiuto, Jr. also filed a Motion for Leave
for Reconsideration2 of respondent Robert Coyiuto, Jr., dated to File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with Attached
March 17, 2010, from the Decision rendered in favor of petitioner Supplemental Motion, both dated March 17, 2010.
Alfonso T. Yuchengco, dated November 25, 2009.
On April 21, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution 9 resolving to
At the outset, a brief narration of the factual and procedural recall the Resolution dated March 3, 2010; grant Coyiuto, Jr.s
antecedents that transpired and led to the filing of the motions is motion for leave to file supplemental motion for reconsideration;
in order. note the supplemental motion for reconsideration; and require
petitioner to comment on the motion for reconsideration and
The present controversy arose when in the last quarter of 1993, supplemental motion for reconsideration.
several allegedly defamatory articles against petitioner were
published in The Manila Chronicle by Chronicle Publishing On June 22, 2010, petitioner filed his Comment on the Motion for
Corporation. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint against Reconsideration10 dated January 15, 2010 and Comment on
respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati respondent Coyiuto, Jr.s Supplemental Motion for
City, Branch 136, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1114, under Reconsideration11 dated 17 March 2010.
three separate causes of action, namely: (1) for damages due to
libelous publication against Neal H. Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino, Noel In the Motion for Reconsideration, respondents moved for a
Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, reconsideration of the earlier decision on the following grounds:
Raul Valino, Rodney P. Diola, all members of the editorial staff
and writers of The Manila Chronicle, and Chronicle Publishing;
(2) for damages due to abuse of right against Robert Coyiuto, Jr. 1. MALICE-IN-FACT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
and Chronicle Publishing; and (3) for attorneys fees and costs
against all the respondents. 2. PETITIONER IS A "PUBLIC FIGURE."

On November 8, 2002, the trial court rendered a Decision3 in 3. THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLICATIONS
favor of petitioner. CONSTITUTES FAIR COMMENTS, ON PUBLIC
ISSUES, ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND
Aggrieved, respondents sought recourse before the Court of NATIONAL CONCERN.
Appeals (CA). On March 18, 2008, the CA rendered a
Decision4 affirming in toto the decision of the RTC. 4. RESPONDENTS DID NOT ACT IN A RECKLESS
MANNER OR IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE
Respondents then filed a Motion for Reconsideration 5 praying TRUTH OF THE MATTERS COVERED BY THE
that the CA reconsider its earlier decision and reverse the SUBJECT PUBLICATIONS.
decision of the trial court. On August 28, 2008, the CA rendered
an Amended Decision6 reversing the earlier Decision. 5. THE PROTECTIVE MANTLE OF QUALIFIED
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS PROTECTS THE
Subsequently, petitioner filed the present recourse before this SUBJECT PUBLICATIONS.
Court which puts forth the following assignment of errors:
6. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR EVIDENTIARY BASIS TO
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED HOLD DONNA GATDULA, JOINTLY AND
GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT THE CASE SEVERALLY, LIABLE FOR THE SUBJECT
OF ARTURO BORJAL, ET AL. V. COURT OF APPEALS, ET PUBLICATIONS, TOGETHER WITH THE EDITORS
AL., CITED BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR MOTION FOR AND STAFF OF THE NEWSPAPER.
RECONSIDERATION, WARRANTED THE REVERSAL OF THE
CA DECISION DATED MARCH 18, 2008. 7. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO HOLD THELMA SAN
JUAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBJECT
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PUBLICATIONS.
GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT THE
 8. THE "QUICK NOTES" COLUMN OF MR. RAUL From the foregoing, it is apparent that the motion for
VALINO ARE BASED ON FACTS; THUS, NOT reconsideration generally restates and reiterates the arguments,
LIBELOUS. which were previously advanced by respondents and does not
present any substantial reasons, which were not formerly invoked
9. ROBERT COYIUTO, JR. IS NOT IMPLEADED WITH and passed upon by the Court.
THE EDITORS AND STAFF MEMBERS OF THE
MANILA CHRONICLE, BUT IS SUED IN "HIS However, from the supplemental motion for reconsideration, it is
PERSONAL CAPACITY" FOR AN "ABUSE OF RIGHT" apparent that Coyiuto, Jr. raises a new matter which has not
AND NO EVIDENCE LINKS HIM TO THE SUBJECT been raised in the proceedings below. This notwithstanding,
PUBLICATIONS. basic equity dictates that Coyiuto, Jr. should be given all the
opportunity to ventilate his arguments in the present action, but
10. THE AWARDED DAMAGES ARE EXCESSIVE, more importantly, in order to write finis to the present
EQUITABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED.12 controversy. It should be noted that the Resolution denying the
Motion for Reconsideration was later recalled by this Court in the
Resolution dated March 3, 2010, and therein, petitioner was
In his Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, Coyiuto, Jr. given the opportunity to refute Coyiuto, Jr.s arguments by filing
raises the following arguments: his comment on the motion for reconsideration and the
supplemental motion for reconsideration, which petitioner
I. complied with.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE From these Comments and contrary to Coyiuto, Jr.s contention,
COURT OBVIOUSLY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT it was substantially established that he was the Chairman of
IN PETITIONERS AMENDED COMPLAINT (DATED Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation when the subject
OCTOBER 17, 1994), RESPONDENT ROBERT articles were published. Coyiuto, Jr. even admitted this fact in his
COYIUTO, JR. WAS NOT SUED FOR DAMAGES Reply and Comment on Request for Admission,14 to wit:
ALLEGEDLY DUE TO "LIBELOUS PUBLICATIONS"
(FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION). HE WAS SUED, 4. Defendant Robert Coyiuto Jr. ADMITS that he was the
HOWEVER, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY FOR Chairman of the Board but not President of the Manila Chronicle
"ABUSE OF RIGHT" (SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION) during the period Novemeber (sic) to December 1993.
ALLEGEDLY, AS "CHAIRMAN" OF THE BOARD,
"OFFICER," "PRINCIPAL OWNER," OF THE MANILA
CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION UNDER 5. Defendant Robert Coyiuto Jr. DENIES paragraph 11. He has
ARTICLES 19 AND 20 OF THE CIVIL CODE. AS already conveyed such denial to plaintiff in the course of the pre-
SUCH, THE IMPOSITION OF MORAL (25 MILLION trial. It was The Manila Chronicle, a newspaper of general
PESOS) AND EXEMPLARY (10 MILLION PESOS) circulation, of which he is, admittedly Chairman of the Board, that
DAMAGES AGAINST RESPONDENT COYIUTO, JR. published the items marked as plaintiffs Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F,
HAS NO BASIS IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE and G.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2219 AND
2229, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 2233, xxxx
RESPECTIVELY, OF THE CIVIL CODE AS WILL BE
ELUCIDATED HEREUNDER. 12. This case, based on plaintiffs Amended Complaint, is limited
to the publications in The Manila Chronicle marked plaintiffs
II. Exhibits "A" to "G", consecutively, published by defendant Manila
Chronicle. Thus, only the question of whether Mr. Robert
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, APART FROM THE SELF- Coyiuto, Jr. was Chairman and President of defendant Manila
SERVING/UNILATERAL ALLEGATION IN Chronicle, during these publications and whether he caused
PARAGRAPH 3.11 OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT these publications, among all of plaintiffs queries, are relevant
(ANNEX "C" OF PETITION FOR REVIEW), NO IOTA and material to this case. And defendant Robert Coyiuto, Jr. has
OF EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED ON TRIAL IN answered that: "Yes", he was Chairman of the Board. "No", he
SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATION THAT was never President of The Manila Chronicle. "No", he did not
RESPONDENT COYIUTO, JR. WAS "CHAIRMAN", cause the publications in The Manila Chronicle: it was the Manila
"PRINCIPAL OWNER" AND "OFFICER" OF Chronicle that published the news items adverted to. 15
RESPONDENT MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING
CORPORATION. SEC DOCUMENTS SHOW THE Both the trial court and the CA affirmed this fact. We reiterate that
CONTRARY, AS WILL BE DISCUSSED HEREUNDER. factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by
SO HOW COULD RESPONDENT COYIUTO, JR. BE the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will
IMPLEADED TO HAVE "ABUSED HIS RIGHT AS A generally not be reviewed on appeal. While this Court has
NON-CHAIRMAN, NON-STOCKHOLDER, NON- recognized several exceptions16 to this rule, none of these
OFFICER OF RESPONDENT MANILA CHRONICLE exceptions exists in the present case. Accordingly, this Court
PUBLISHING CORPORATION? IT IS FUNDAMENTAL finds no reason to depart from the findings of fact of the trial court
THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE and the CA.
PARTY ASSERTING A FACT OR ESTABLISHING A
CLAIM (RULE 131, REVISED RULES OF COURT).13 More importantly and contrary again to Coyiuto, Jr.s contention,
the cause of action of petitioner based on "abuse of rights," or
Article 19, in relation to Article 20 of the Civil Code, warrants the sanctions of all other provisions of law which do not especially
award of damages. provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the
The principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Article 19 of the said provision and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is
Civil Code provides: thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be
responsible.20 Thus, if the provision does not provide a remedy
for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper.
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.
The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights
has been violated resulting in damages under Article 20 or other
This provision of law sets standards which must be observed in applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of
the exercise of ones rights as well as in the performance of its each case. In the present case, it was found that Coyiuto, Jr.
duties, to wit: to act with justice; give everyone his due; and indeed abused his rights as Chairman of The Manila Chronicle,
observe honesty and good faith.17 which led to the publication of the libelous articles in the said
newspaper, thus, entitling petitioner to damages under Article 19,
In Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of in relation to Article 20.
Appeals,18 it was elucidated that while Article 19 "lays down a
rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the Consequently, the trial court and the CA correctly awarded moral
maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its damages to petitioner. Such damages may be awarded when the
violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article transgression is the cause of petitioners anguish. 21 Further,
20 or Article 21 would be proper." The Court said: converse to Coyiuto, Jr.s argument, although petitioner is
claiming damages for violation of Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil
One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the Code, still such violations directly resulted in the publication of
codification of "some basic principles that are to be observed for the libelous articles in the newspaper, which, by analogy, is one
the rightful relationship between human beings and for the of the ground for the recovery of moral damages under (7) of
stability of the social order." [REPORT ON THE CODE Article 2219.22
COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED CIVIL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, p. 39]. The framers of the Code, seeking to However, despite the foregoing, the damages awarded to
remedy the defect of the old Code which merely stated the petitioner appear to be too excessive and warrants a second
effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit, incorporated hard look by the Court.
certain fundamental precepts which were "designed to indicate
certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience"
and which were also meant to serve as "guides for human While there is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be
conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society, to a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, the same
the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the should not be palpably and scandalously excessive. Moral
sway and dominance of justice." (Id.) Foremost among these damages are not intended to impose a penalty to the wrongdoer,
principles is that pronounced in Article 19 which provides: neither to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant. 23

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the Even petitioner, in his Comment24 dated June 21, 2010, agree
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, that moral damages "are not awarded in order to punish the
and observe honesty and good faith. respondents or to make the petitioner any richer than he already
is, but to enable the latter to find some cure for the moral anguish
and distress he has undergone by reason of the defamatory and
This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as damaging articles which the respondents wrote and
the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must published."25 Further, petitioner cites as sufficient basis for the
be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights, but also in award of damages the plain reason that he had to "go through
the performance of one's duties. These standards are the the ordeal of defending himself everytime someone approached
following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to him to ask whether or not the statements in the defamatory
observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a article are true."
primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms
of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A
right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law In Philippine Journalists, Inc. (Peoples Journal) v.
as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. Thoenen,26 citing Guevarra v. Almario,27 We noted that the
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform damages in a libel case must depend upon the facts of the
with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to particular case and the sound discretion of the court, although
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the appellate courts were "more likely to reduce damages for libel
wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays than to increase them." So it must be in this case.
down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations
and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a Moral damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease the
remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under defendants grief and suffering. Moral damages should be
either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.19 reasonably approximate to the extent of the hurt caused and the
gravity of the wrong done.28 The Court, therefore, finds the award
Corollarilly, Article 20 provides that "every person who, contrary of moral damages in the first and second cause of action in the
to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall amount of 2,000,000.00 and 25,000,000.00, respectively, to
indemnify the latter for the same." It speaks of the general be too excessive and holds that an award of 1,000,000.00 and
10,000,000.00, respectively, as moral damages are more WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
reasonable. rendered as follows:

As for exemplary damages, Article 2229 provides that exemplary 1. On the First Cause of Action, ordering defendants
damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for Chronicle Publishing, Neil H. Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino,
the public good. Nonetheless, exemplary damages are imposed Noel Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza,
not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a Donna Gatdula, Raul Valino and Rodney Diola, to pay
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally:
deleterious actions.29 On this basis, the award of exemplary
damages in the first and second cause of action in the amount of a. the amount of One Million Pesos
500,000.00 and 10,000,000.00, respectively, is reduced to (1,000,000.00) as moral damages; and
200,000.00 and 1,000,000.00, respectively.
b. the amount of Two Hundred Thousand
On the matter of attorneys fees and costs of suit, Article 2208 of Pesos (200,000.00) as exemplary damages;
the same Code provides, among others, that attorneys fees and
expenses of litigation may be recovered in cases when
exemplary damages are awarded and where the court deems it 2. On the Second Cause of Action, ordering defendants
just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation Robert Coyiuto, Jr. and Chronicle Publishing to pay
should be recovered. In any event, however, such award must be plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally:
reasonable, just and equitable.30 Thus, the award of attorneys
fees and costs is reduced from 1,000,000.00 to 200,000.00. a. the amount of Ten Million Pesos
(10,000,000.00) as moral damages; and
One final note, the case against respondent was one for
damages based on the publication of libelous articles against b. the amount of One Million Pesos
petitioner; hence, only civil in nature. The rule is that a party who (1,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
has the burden of proof in a civil case must establish his cause of
action by a preponderance of evidence. Thus, respondents 3. On the Third Cause of Action, ordering all defendants
liability was proven only on the basis of preponderance of to pay plaintiff Yuchengco, jointly and severally, the
evidence, which is quite different from a criminal case for libel amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
where proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established. (200,000.00) as attorneys fee and legal costs.

Corollarilly, under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the Costs against respondents.
person who "caused the publication" of a defamatory article shall
be responsible for the same. Hence, Coyiuto, Jr. should have
been held jointly and solidarily liable with the other respondents SO ORDERED.
in the first cause of action under this article and not on the basis
of violation of the principle of abuse of rights founded on Articles
19 and 20 of the Civil Code. Because of the exclusion of Coyiuto,
Jr. in the first cause of action for libel, he cannot be held solidarily
liable with the other respondents in the first cause of action.
Nonetheless, since damage to petitioner was in fact established
warranting the award of moral and exemplary damages, the
same could only be awarded based on petitioners second cause
of action impleading Coyiuto, Jr. for violation of the principle of
abuse of right.

It did not escape the attention of the Court that in filing two
different causes of action based on the same published articles,
petitioner intended the liability of Coyiuto, Jr. to be different from
the other respondents. It can be inferred that if Coyiuto, Jr. was
impleaded in the first cause of action for recovery of the civil
liability in libel, petitioner could not have prayed for higher
damages, considering that the other respondents, who are jointly
and severally liable with one another, are not in the same
financial standing as Coyiuto, Jr. Petitioner, in effect, had spared
the other respondents from paying such steep amount of
damages, while at the same time prayed that Coyiuto, Jr. pay
millions of pesos by way of moral and exemplary damages in the
second cause of action.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and