4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

G.R. No. 180197. June 23, 2009.*

FRANCISCO N. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO

P. BALAGUER and INTERCONTINENTAL
BROADCASTING CORPORATION CHANNEL-13,
respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Evidence; The burden of proof

in civil cases is that each party must prove his own affirmative
allegations and that the burden of proof lies on the party who
would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side; In civil
cases, the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff, with respect
to his complaint.—As early as 1905, this Court has declared that
it is the duty of the party seeking to enforce a right to prove that
their right actually exists. In varying language, our Rules of
Court, in speaking of burden of proof in civil cases, states that
each party must prove his own affirmative allegations and that
the burden of proof lies on the party who would be defeated if no
evidence were given on either side. Thus, in civil cases, the
burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff, with respect to his
complaint.
Same; Same; Same; Admissions; One cannot prove his claim
by placing the burden of proof on the other party; A failure to
answer such adverse assertions in the absence of further
circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no effect
as an admission.—One cannot prove his claim by placing the
burden of proof on the other party. Indeed, “(a) man cannot make
evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements
that he wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by
sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts
[stated therein]. He no more can impose a duty to answer a
charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods.
Therefore a failure to answer such adverse assertions in the
absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or
natural has no effect as an admission.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; The rule on admission by silence
applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying
on a mutual correspondence with the declarant; While the party
would have immediately reacted by a denial if the statements were
orally
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

made in his presence, such prompt response can generally not be

expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply.—The rule
on admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if
the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the
declarant. However, if there was no such mutual correspondence,
the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the party would have
immediately reacted by a denial if the statements were orally
made in his presence, such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Newspaper articles purporting to
state what the defendant said are inadmissible against him, since
he cannot be held responsible for the writings of third persons.—As
for the publications themselves, newspaper articles purporting to
state what the defendant said are inadmissible against him, since
he cannot be held responsible for the writings of third persons. As
correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, “while the subject
news items indicated that Balaguer was the source of the
columnists, proving that he truly made such statements is
another matter.” Petitioner failed to prove that Balaguer did
make such statements.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The admission of one defendant is
not admissible against his co-defendant.—IBC-13’s cross-claim
against Balaguer effectively created an adverse interest between
them. Hence, the admission of one defendant is not admissible
against his co-defendant. Besides, as already discussed, the
alleged acts imputed to Balaguer were never proven to have been
committed, much less maliciously, by Balaguer. Malice or bad
faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful
act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Such must be
substantiated by evidence.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Rico & Associates for petitioner.
  The Government Corporate Counsel for respondent
IBC-13.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

  Jacinto D. Jimenez for respondent Virgilio Balaguer.

663

VOL. 590, JUNE 23, 2009 663

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Assailed is the August 10, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81657 which reversed the
October 29, 2003 Decision and February 2, 2004 Resolution
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89
finding petitioner Francisco N. Villanueva entitled to
damages. Also assailed is the October 16, 2007 Resolution2
denying the motion for reconsideration.
On March 31, 1992, petitioner Francisco N. Villanueva,
then Assistant Manager for Operations of Intercontinental
Broadcasting Corporation-Channel 13 (IBC-13) was
dismissed from employment on the ground of loss of
confidence for purportedly selling forged certificates of
performance. Contesting his termination, petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor
Relations Commission.
During the pendency of the labor case, news articles
about irregularities in IBC-13 were published in the July
18, 1992 issue of the Manila Times and the Philippine Star,
and in the July 19, 1992 issue of the Manila Bulletin.
In these news articles, respondent Virgilio P. Balaguer,
then President of IBC-13, was quoted to have said that he
uncovered various anomalies in IBC-13 during his tenure
which led to the dismissal of an operations executive for
selling forged certificates of performance.
In the Manila Times, on July 18, 1992:3

Anomalies at IBC-13 uncovered

INSIDER pilferage, malversation, overpricing and other
irregularities have cost government-owned Intercontinental
Broad-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 40-50; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and

concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas-
Peralta.
2 Id., at pp. 52-53.
3 Id., at p. 98.

664

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

casting Corporation (IBC) 13 more than P108 million in losses for

the period 1986-1989.
Gil P. Balaguer, IBC president, uncovered the anomalies after
a long and painstaking investigation when he took over the
company in 1990.
The investigation uncovered irregularities ranging from selling
forged certificates of performance (CP’s) to non-remittance of sales
collections, illegal and unauthorized airing of movie trailer
advertisements (MTA’s), illegal leasing of electricity and
machines to “friendly clients,” millions worth of undocumented
transactions to movie suppliers, exorbitant fees against in-house
productions, abused overtime charges by certain employees.
The anomalies did not escape Balaguer when he came to IBC-
13 backed by hands-on experience in television management
work.
IBC has had four presidents since 1986 after the EDSA
revolution. Balaguer is the fifth president.
A special investigative committee helped Balaguer uncover the
anomalies in IBC. It led to the dismissal of an operations
executive who sold forged certificates of performance, a
former supervisor who pocketed IBC’s sales collections, and
station managers who did not remit payments on radio
advertisements.
Other anomalies committed against the government station
include the loose issuance of technical facilities orders (TFO’s)
which practically leased the network’s broadcast facilities to a
“friendly client” for free.
Balaguer, sources said, succeeded in staying as president
because of his technical expertise in media and communications
and his “managerial will” to cleanse the ranks of the firm.”
(Emphasis supplied)

In the Philippine Star, on July 18, 1992:4

IBC president uncovers anomalies at tv network

The government-owned International Broadcasting Corp.-
Channel 13 lost more than P108 million due to insider pilferage,
malversation, overpricing and other irregularities from 1986 to
1989.

_______________

4 Id., at p. 101.

665

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

VOL. 590, JUNE 23, 2009 665

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

IBC president Gil P. Balaguer uncovered the anomalies after

“a long and painstaking investigation” when he took over the
television station in 1990.
Balaguer, in a statement, said the irregularities uncovered
included the sale of forged certificates of performance, non-
remittance of sales collections, illegal and unauthorized airing of
movie advertisements, illegal lease of equipment to “friendly”
clients, exorbitant fees on in-house productions and abused
overtime charges by some employees.
Balaguer, the fifth IBC president since 1986, easily detected
the anomalies as he has a vast experience in television
management work.
A special investigative committee helped Balaguer uncover the
anomalies at IBC, which has resulted in the dismissal of an
operations executive who sold forged certificates of
performance, a former supervisor who pocketed sales collections
and a station manager who did not remit payments on radio
advertisements.” (Emphasis supplied)

In the Manila Bulletin, on July 19, 1992:5

Sequestered firm’s losses bared

The Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. (IBC) 13, a
sequestered firm, lost more than P108 million for the period 1986-
1989 due to pilferage, malversation, over-pricing, and other
irregularities perpetrated by a syndicate, according to Gil P.
Balaguer, IBC president, who took over the company in 1990.
He said the irregularities ranged from selling forged
certificates of performance to non-remittance of sales collections,
illegal and unauthorized airing of movie trailer advertisements,
illegal leasing of electricity and machines to “friendly clients,”
millions worth of undocumented transactions to movie suppliers,
exorbitant fees against in-house productions, and abused overtime
charges by certain employees.
IBC has had four presidents since 1986, Balaguer being the
fifth.

_______________

5 Id., at p. 95.

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

A special probe committee that helped Balaguer said one

dismissed executive sold forged certificates of
performance, a former supervisor pocketed IBC sales
collections, and some station managers did not remit payments on
radio advertisements.
The loose issuance of technical facilities orders practically
leased the network’s broadcast facilities to a “friendly client” for
free.
Balaguer is credited with accelerating the network’s rank from
number five in 1988 to number two or three under current
ratings, despite the efforts of some holdouts who tried to derail his
administration.” (Emphasis supplied)

In a letter dated July 20, 1992, petitioner urged

respondents to confirm or deny if he was the person alluded
to in the news article as the operations executive of IBC-13
who was dismissed for selling forged certificates of
performance.6 None of the respondents replied to the letter.
On September 25, 1992, petitioner filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for
damages against Balaguer,7 which was later amended by
impleading IBC-13 as additional defendant.8
Petitioner claimed that respondents caused the
publication of the subject news articles which defamed him
by falsely and maliciously referring to him as the IBC-13
operations executive who sold forged certificates of
performance.9 He alleged that in causing these false and
malicious publications, respondents violated Articles 19,
20, 21, and 26 of the Civil Code.10

_______________

6 Id., at p. 104.
7 Id., at p. 54.
8 Id., at p. 57.
9 Id., at p. 58.
10 Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

667

VOL. 590, JUNE 23, 2009 667

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

Balaguer denied that he had anything to do with the

publications.11 However, he argued that the publications
are not actionable because they are true and without
malice;12 are of legitimate public concern and interest
because IBC-13 is under sequestration; that petitioner is a
newsworthy and public figure;13 and that they are
privileged communication.14 Bala-guer filed a counterclaim
against petitioner for alleged malicious filing of the civil
case.15
IBC-13 also denied participation in the publications. It
claimed that assuming press statements were issued
during a press conference, the same was done solely by
Balaguer without its authority or sanction.16 IBC-13 also
filed a counterclaim against petitioner17 and a cross-claim
against Bala-guer.18
On August 31, 1993, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
Decision19 finding petitioner’s dismissal as illegal, which
was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission, however, declared respondents to be
acting in good faith, hence, it deleted the award of moral
and exemplary damages. On December 6, 1994, the parties
entered into

_______________

 Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. x x x
11 Rollo, p. 67.
12 Id.
13 Id., at pp. 67-68.
14 Id., at p. 68.
15 Id.
16 Id., at p. 61.
17 Id., at p. 62.
18 Id., at p. 63.
19 Id., at pp. 105-128.

668

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

a Compromise Agreement,20 with IBC-13 proposing a

scheme of payment for petitioner’s monetary claims, and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

with IBC-13 and petitioner waiving any and all claims

against each other arising out of the labor case.
On October 29, 2003, the Regional Trial Court21 of
Quezon City held that petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages,22 thus:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor

of plaintiff Francisco N. Villanueva and against defendants Balaguer and
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC-13).
Accordingly, defendants are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff jointly
and severally, as follows:
1) the sum of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos by
way of moral damages;
2) the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as
and by way of exemplary damages;
3) the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos by way of
nominal damages;
4) the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos by way of
temperate or moderate damages; and
5) the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as
and by way of attorney’s fees.
        With costs against defendants.
        SO ORDERED.”23

        Respondents moved for reconsideration but it was

denied.24 Hence, they appealed to the Court of Appeals
which rendered the herein assailed Decision on August 10,
2007, disposing thus:

_______________

20  Exhibit “27,” Folder of Pre-Trial Brief and Exhibits for Virgilio
Balaguer.
21 Penned by Judge Elsa I. De Guzman.
22 Rollo, pp. 298-337.
23 Id., at p. 336.
24 Id., at pp. 382-393.

669

VOL. 590, JUNE 23, 2009 669

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

GRANTED. The October 29, 2003 Decision and the February 2,
2004 Resolution with Clarification issued by the Regional Trial
Court, Br. 89, National Capital Judicial Region, Quezon City, are
hereby REVERSED. The Complaint, the Counterclaim, and the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

Cross-claim in Civil Case No. Q-92-13680 are hereby

DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.”25

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Hence, the instant petition raising the following issues:26

a) Does the failure of the addressee to respond to a letter

containing statements attributing to him commission of
acts constituting actionable wrong, hence, adverse to his
interest, and of such nature as would call for his reaction,
reply, or comment if untrue, constitute his admission of said
statements, consequently, may be used in evidence against
him?
b) Is the admission by a principal admissible against its
agent? Is the admission by a person jointly interested with
a party admissible against the latter?
c) Does the failure of an individual to disown the attribution
to him by newspaper publications, as the source of
defamatory newspaper reports, when he is free and very
able to do so, constitute admission that he, indeed, was the
source of the said defamatory news reports?

The petition lacks merit.

As early as 1905, this Court has declared that it is the
duty of the party seeking to enforce a right to prove that
their right actually exists. In varying language, our Rules
of Court, in speaking of burden of proof in civil cases, states
that each party must prove his own affirmative allegations
and that the burden of proof lies on the party who would be
defeated if no

_______________

25 Id., at p. 50.
26 Id., at p. 10.

670

670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

evidence were given on either side.27 Thus, in civil cases,

the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff, with
respect to his complaint.28
In proving his claim, petitioner relied on the July 20,
1992 letter, the newspaper articles, and the alleged
admission of respondents. Based on the above pieces of
evidence, the Court finds that petitioner was unable to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

discharge his burden of proof. As such, the Court of

Appeals properly dismissed the complaint for damages.
The July 20, 1992 letter sent by petitioner to
respondents reads as follows:29

20 July 1992
Mr. Virgilio Balaguer
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast City, Capitol Hills
Diliman, Quezon City
Dear Mr. Balaguer:
We write on behalf of our client, Mr. Francisco N. Villanueva.
You have caused to be published in the 18 July 1992 issue of
The Philippine Star and 19 July 1992 issue of Manila Bulletin, a
news item wherein you stated that you dismissed an Operations
Executive because he “sold forged Certificate of Performance.”
Our immediate impression is, you are referring to our client,
Francisco N. Villanueva, because he is the only Operations
Executive in IBC, Channel 13 you have illegally and despotically
dismissed.
We urge you, therefore, to inform us, within forty-eight (48)
hours from your receipt of this letter that the Operations
Executive

_______________

27 Santiago Virginia Tobacco Planters Association, Inc. v. Philippine Virginia

Tobacco Administration and Farmers’ Virginia Tobacco Redriers, Inc., G.R. No. L-
26292, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 528, 535.
28  Florenz D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM - VOLUME II (Mandaluyong
City: National Book Store, 2004), p. 772.
29 Rollo, p. 104.

671

VOL. 590, JUNE 23, 2009 671

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

you referred to in your press statement is not our client, Francisco

N. Villanueva. We shall construe your failure/refusal to reply as
your unequivocal admission that you are, in fact, actually
referring to our client, Mr. Francisco N. Villanueva, as the
operations executive who “sold forged Certificate of Performance.”
Accordingly, we shall immediately proceed to take appropriate
criminal and civil court actions against you without further
notice.
                                                              Very truly yours,
                                                                            (signed)
                                                                     REX G. RICO
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

cc: Mr. Francisco N. Villanueva

Board of Administrators, IBC-13

Petitioner argues that by not responding to the above

letter which expressly urged them to reply if the
statements therein contained are untrue, respondents in
effect admitted the matters stated therein, pursuant to the
rule on admission by silence in Sec. 32, Rule 130,30 and the
disputable presumption that acquiescence resulted from a
belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
law or fact.31
Petitioner’s argument lacks merit. One cannot prove his
claim by placing the burden of proof on the other party.
Indeed, “(a) man cannot make evidence for himself by
writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to
prove. He does not make the letter evidence by sending it to
the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts [stated
therein]. He no more can impose a duty to answer a charge
than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods.
Therefore a failure to answer such adverse assertions in
the absence of further

_______________

 30 SEC. 32. Admission by silence.—An act or declaration made in the

presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or
says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do
so, may be given in evidence against him.
31 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (x).

672

672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has

no effect as an admission.”32
Moreover, the rule on admission by silence applies to
adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on
a mutual correspondence with the declarant. However, if
there was no such mutual correspondence, the rule is
relaxed on the theory that while the party would have
immediately reacted by a denial if the statements were
orally made in his presence, such prompt response can
generally not be expected if the party still has to resort to a
written reply.33

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

In the same manner, we also cannot assume an

admission by silence on the part of Balaguer by virtue of
his failure to protest or disclaim the attribution to him by
the newspapers that he is the source of the articles. As
explained above, the rule on admission by silence is relaxed
when the statement is not made orally in one’s presence or
when one still has to resort to a written reply, or when
there is no mutual correspondence between the parties.
As for the publications themselves, newspaper articles
purporting to state what the defendant said are
inadmissible against him, since he cannot be held
responsible for the writings of third persons.34 As correctly
observed by the Court of Appeals, “while the subject news
items indicated that Balaguer was the source of the
columnists, proving that he truly made such statements is
another matter.”35 Petitioner failed to prove that Balaguer
did make such statements.
Notably, petitioner did not implead the editorial staff
and the publisher of the alleged defamatory articles.36
Contrary to

_______________

32 Ravago Equipment Rentals, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 584,

590-591; 271 SCRA 136, 142 (1997).
33 Regalado, supra note 28 at pp. 724-725.
34 Carpenter v. Ashley, 148 Cal 422, 83 P 44 (1906).
35 Rollo, p. 48.
36 Manuel v. Pano, G.R. No. 46079, April 17, 1989, 172 SCRA 225, 238.

673

VOL. 590, JUNE 23, 2009 673

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

petitioner’s assertion, he should have at least presented the

authors of the news articles as witnesses to prove his case
against respondents in the absence of an express admission
by the latter that the subject news articles have been
caused by them.
Petitioner also claims that respondents have admitted
that they held a press conference and caused the
publication of the news articles, based on the following
testimony of Balaguer:37
            ATTY. JIMENEZ:
               Okay, Let me ask another question. Now Mr. Balaguer
this publication referred to so called anomalies of 1986 to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

1989 now how about the termination.

A:1991.
ATTY. JIMENEZ:
         Yes.
WITNESS:
         I think the termination of Mr. Villanueva has nothing to do
with that press statement release because the period that
covers that report is from specific date 1986 to 1989. (TSN,
07 November 2000, p. 19)

Admissions, however, should be clear and

unambiguous38 which can hardly be said of Balaguer’s
above testimony. If Balaguer intended to admit the
allegation that he conducted a press conference and caused
the publication of the news articles, he could have done so.
Instead, Balaguer specifically denied these allegations in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of his Answer.39
Petitioner next argues that IBC-13’s Cross-Claim
against Balaguer, in that:40

_______________

37 Rollo, p. 21.
38 Carandang v. Heirs of Quiring A. De Guzman, G.R. No. 160347,
November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 469, 495.
39 Rollo, pp. 65-66.
40 Id., at p. 63.

674

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villanueva vs. Balaguer

“11. The acts complained of by the plaintiff were done solely

by co-defendant Balaguer.
Balaguer resorted to these things in his attempt to stave off his
impending removal from IBC.”

is an admission by IBC-13, which is admissible against

Balaguer pursuant to Sec. 29, Rule 13041 as an admission
by a co-partner or an agent.
Petitioner is mistaken. IBC-13’s cross-claim against
Balaguer effectively created an adverse interest between
them. Hence, the admission of one defendant is not
admissible against his co-defendant. Besides, as already
discussed, the alleged acts imputed to Balaguer were never
proven to have been committed, much less maliciously, by
Balaguer. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
4/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 590

purpose or moral obliquity. Such must be substantiated by

evidence.42
In sum, we find that petitioner failed to discharge his
burden of proof. No satisfactory evidence was presented to
prove by preponderance of evidence that respondents
committed the acts imputed against them. As such, there is
no more need to discuss whether the assailed statements
are defamatory.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 10,
2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
81657 reversing the October 29, 2003 Decision and
February 2, 2004 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 89, finding petitioner entitled to
damages, as well as

_______________

41 SEC. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent.—The act or

declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his
authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be
given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party.
42  Desiderio P. Jurado, Civil Law Reviewer (Manila: Rex Book Store,
Inc., 2006), p. 32.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c3a4eecc1f18becf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14