28.8 C
Friday, February 26, 2021

When journalism turns into a libelous statement: Michael Guy vs. Raffy Tulfo

Must read

Young musicians from Rizal speak up on music and politics| MIXXXOLYDIAN presents SINGKO

Members: Anton Acosta, Noel Caliwara, Dylan Manuel, Darren Nicolas, and Josh Papa Managers:...

Duterte’s recent SC appointees have more diverse “law schools” background

The Supreme Court (SC) is an elusive institution. Under the mantle of privacy, the Court enables itself with...

The unborn as a legal person: Revisiting Geluz vs Court of Appeals

In 1961 landmark case Geluz vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961) the Supreme Court through J. B. L....

Teaching Philosophy in SHS: What is Freedom? A Phenomonological Reflection on Freedom of the Human Person

In this series of articles, I will share my experience as teacher of Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person. Philosophy is...
Paul Tena
Paul Tena is an alumnus of both the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and Adamson University. He currently serves as Editor-in-Chief of Politixxx Today and he also traverses into fiction writing in his spare time. Sometimes he goes by his pen name JPE Tena. Now, his debut novel, The Lore Kingdom, is out in the market. For more information, you may reach him via paul.tena@politixxx.today or tenajpe@gmail.com.

Our rights end when another person’s rights begin. This is the essence of libel suits wherein persons such as journalists are bound to be accountable for the things that they say especially when bare allegations prove to be unfounded. A perfect example is the case of Michael C. Guy vs. Raffy Tulfo, et.al.

The controversial article

According to the Supreme Court, “Written by Raffy T. Tulfo (Tulfo), the article reported that a certain Michael C. Guy (Guy), who was then being investigated by the Revenue Integrity Protection Service of the Department of Finance for tax fraud, went to former Department of Finance Secretary Juanita Amatong (Secretary Amatong)’s house to ask for help. Secretary Amatong then purportedly called the head of the Revenue Integrity Protection Service and directed that all the documents that the Revenue Integrity Protection Service had obtained on Guy’s case be surrendered to her.”

The article was published by Abante Tonite. Consequently, petitioner Guy included key officials of the tabloid in his complaint. During the trial, the respondents refused to enter a plea. Nonetheless, the case went on and the trial court eventually rendered a decision that convicted the respondents.

The decision of the lower and appellate courts

Both the Makati Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held that Tulfo and his fellow respondents were guilty of the crime of libel. Though the amount of the damages varied, the fact that the article constituted a libelous statement cemented the liabilities of the respondents.

Tulfo and his fellow respondents maintained their position that they are innocent of the crime. Hence, they appealed the decision. On the other hand, petitioner Guy also appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals and prayed that the decision of the trial court to be reinstated. The case further stated that Guy moved for partial reconsideration and clarification of the decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision

The case was partially granted before the highest court of the land. Then, respondents Tulfo et. al. were ordered to solidarity pay petitioner Michael C. Guy: (1) Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages; (2) One Million Pesos (P1,000.000.00) as exemplary damages; and (3) Two Hundred Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P211,200.00) as attorney’s fees. The Court exhaustively also discussed the ratio of the damages that the petitioner must be entitled to.

A reminder for journalists

Speaking through Justice Leonen, the High Court reminded, “More often than not, journalists are at the forefront of information publication and dissemination. Owing to the nature of their work, they have the prerogative to shape the news as they see fit. This Court does not turn a blind eye to some of them who twist the news to give an ambiguous interpretation that is in reckless disregard of the truth.”

The Court concluded with a stern reminder, “As such, journalists should observe high standards expected from their profession. They must take responsibility for the accuracy of their work, careful never to deliberately distort facts or context by verifying information before releasing it for public consumption.”

This case should be a reminder to all of us – not just journalists – to verify whatever information that we obtain. In the end, the lessons from the decision of the Court equip us with the proper understanding of the line between mere accusations and the truth about a factual matter.

More articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest article

EDSA: A tale of a coup and revolution

There is an unfulfilled promise of EDSA, that people-powered revolution that inspired a lot of people around the world to topple dictatorships...

POLITIXXX Profiler: Amanda Gorman and The Hill She Climbs

On two significant occasions in the United States this year (The Presidential Inauguration and Super Bowl), a rising young woman in the...

Is “Hugot” an inherently inferior form of aesthetics? On artist and netizens’ criticisms of Moira’s hit song “Paubaya”

The Twitter world is once again abuzz when artist Khryss Arañas (@khryssaranas) posted several tweets critiquing Moira Dela Torre’s newest hit song...

Youth group urges COMELEC to step up voter registration drives

In a press statement, the Liberal Youth of the Philippines called on the COMELEC to ensure safe, secure and inclusive voting rights...

Biden keeps the promise of diversity and representation, including Fil-Ams.

Biden promised his cabinet would reflect America's diversity and it will now see its first Native American cabinet secretary (Deb Haaland); first...