Fortich v.

CA  CA: Reversed the RTC, memorandum was not libelous being "within the
Disqualification By Reason of Privileged Comm | February 12, 1997 | J. Kapunan ambit of privileged communications.”
 Hence, this appeal.
Nature of Case: When privileged communication may be properly constituted
Digest maker: Buban, Ana ISSUE/S & RATIO:
SUMMARY: W/N the memorandum was not libelous, being within the ambit of privileged
communications – YES. CA AFFIRMED. Memorandum is privileged
DOCTRINE: A privileged communication is one made bona fide upon any subject communication.
matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which
he has a duty. Discussing the scope of this rule, former Chief Justice Fernando, in RULING:
Mercado v. CFI of Rizal, explained that: . . .. Even when the statements are found  The provisions of law applicable to the case at bar are embodied in Articles
to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge 353 and 354 of the RPC:
is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the o Art. 353.Definition of Libel. — A libel is a public and malicious
individual. But the statements must he made under an honest sense of duty; . . . imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
FACTS: cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
 Petitioner Stanley J. Fortich was employed as an area salesman of the soft person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
drinks division of the San Miguel Corporation in Dipolog City, a job which o Art. 354.Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory
required him to collect various sums of money from the retailers and buyers imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no
of the company along his designated route. good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except
 June 5, 1979: Fortich received a Memorandum ordering him to stop plying in the following cases:
his route and collecting the sums owed by customers for the stated reason of 1. A private communication made by any person to
his alleged "NONISSUANCE (SIC) OF EITHER CHANGE REFUND NOR another in the performance of any legal, moral or
OFFICIAL RECEIPT FOR EMPTIES RETRIEVED FROM OUTLETS WITH social duty; and
TEMPORARY CREDIT SALES.” 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
o Fortich allegedly misappropriated the amount of P1,605.00 from his comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
collections. other official proceedings which are not of confidential
o The order grounding Fortich likewise directed him to instead report nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered
directly "to the sales office every working day at the prescribed in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
company time." public officers in the exercise of their functions.
 Private respondent Galleron, District Sales Supervisor of SMC, submitted a  Nothing in the evidence on record would suggest that the key elements of
second inter-office memorandum addressed to the Regional Sales Manager publicity found in the definition of libel in Article 353 are present here.
summarizing the findings of an initial investigation he conducted: o Firstly, the assailed letter was obviously part and parcel of the
o “S/M Stanley Fortich is an avid mahjong player and a cockfighting initial investigation surrounding the non-remittance of collections
enthusiast. In spite of several advices, there seems to be no change by petitioner. The right hand caption of the memorandum clearly
in his lifestyle. Also, respondent had a similar case last September shows the phrase "Inter-office Memorandum," implying
11, 1978." confidentiality.
 Fortich was found guilty of misappropriating company funds and was o Secondly, petitioner was unable to prove that the letter was
preventively suspended from his job, “upon clearance from the Ministry of circulated or publicized, much less read by officers of the
Labor.” corporation other than those involved in the investigation or those
 Fortich filed a complaint for “Damages Arising from Libel” claiming that directly supervising the petitioner’s work.
the above-quoted second memorandum issued by the private respondent  While imputation of a vice or defect on the petitioner’s
was "wilfull, malicious and done in gross bad faith.” character might have been apparent, the imputation was
 RTC: Ruled in favor of Fortich and ordered Private Respondent Galleron to never really made publicly.
pay for damages.  More importantly, Fortich was not able to establish satisfactorily that the
o Galleron appealed to the CA, contending that the assailed letter- issuance of the letter and its offending paragraph was motivated by malice.
memorandum was protected by the privileged communication rule. o Malice exists when there is an intentional doing of a wrongful act
without just cause.
 o While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be
malicious, there are exceptions to this rule. The record indicates that
this case falls under the settled exceptions to the rule: the private
respondent’s inter-office memorandum falls within the ambit of
privileged communication rule.
 A privileged communication is one made bona fide upon any subject matter
in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which
he has a duty.
o Chief Justice Fernando explains this further in Mercado v CFI: . . .
“Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is
probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is
made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the
mistake of the individual. But the statements must be made under
an honest sense of duty;. . . .”
 It is important to note in this case that private respondent Galleron was the
District Sales Supervisor, the immediate supervisor of petitioner.
o In this capacity, respondent was charged with the duty to carry out
and enforce company rules and policies, including the duty to
undertake initial investigation of possible irregularities in customer
accounts in order to suggest further action which could be taken by
the company.
o In fact, the communications initially submitted by the private
respondent to his superiors prompted the investigation which
eventually led to petitioner’s preventive suspension and to the
decision by the company’s proper officers to terminate the latter’s
employment.
o In making his earlier recommendation, the private respondent
relied on the affidavits submitted by at least three of the company’s
clients (all attesting to irregularities) and his initial though yet-
unsubstantiated findings that respondent was an "avid mahjong
player and a cockfight enthusiast."
o That the affidavits were subsequently found to have been gathered
by the private respondent himself did not diminish their quality.
Investigation necessarily includes the gathering and solicitation of
information.
 Nonetheless, the assailed memorandum report was an official act done in
good faith, an honest innocent statement arising from a moral and legal
obligation which the private respondent certainly owed to the company in
the performance of his duties. The opinion which the private respondent
expressed in the discharge of his duty might have skirted the boundary
which usually separates innocent opinion from actionable defamation.

PETITION DENIED.