0% found this document useful (0 votes)
23 views1 page

Intro To Law Cases

Fermin was charged with libel for publishing a defamatory article about Annabelle and Eduardo Gutierrez. The article made false accusations of criminal behavior and portrayed them poorly. Fermin argued it was fair comment but the court found she acted with malice. The court affirmed Fermin was guilty of libel and sentenced her to pay fines and damages, finding she violated the Gutierrez family's rights to protection of reputation despite free speech protections.

Uploaded by

Jasper Smith
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
23 views1 page

Intro To Law Cases

Fermin was charged with libel for publishing a defamatory article about Annabelle and Eduardo Gutierrez. The article made false accusations of criminal behavior and portrayed them poorly. Fermin argued it was fair comment but the court found she acted with malice. The court affirmed Fermin was guilty of libel and sentenced her to pay fines and damages, finding she violated the Gutierrez family's rights to protection of reputation despite free speech protections.

Uploaded by

Jasper Smith
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASES FACTS ISSUES RULING

1. Fermin v. Fermin, the petitioner, was charged 1. Whether or not Thesis:


People, 550 with libel for writing and publishing a the publication
SCRA 132 , defamatory article in a tabloid. The of the Yes, the publication of the
March 28, complainants in the case were defamatory defamatory article constituted libel.
2008 (Topic: Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo article
Generally) Gutierrez. The libelous article constitutes Rule:
contained accusations of criminal libel.
behavior, including malversation of Article III, Section 4, 1987 Philippine
funds, and portrayed the complainants Constitution): This constitutional
as fugitives from the law who had provision guarantees the right to
returned to the Philippines to evade freedom of speech, of expression,
prosecution in the United States. The and of the press. It states that no
article also implied that Annabelle law shall be passed abridging these
Rama Gutierrez lost money through rights.
irresponsible gambling in casinos.
Jurisprudence provides that,
In the trial at the Regional Trial Court freedom of speech and freedom of
(RTC) of Quezon City, Fermin argued the press, while constitutionally
that the article was merely a fair and protected rights, are not absolute
honest comment on the issuance of a and must be exercised responsibly.
warrant of arrest against Annabelle It is important to balance freedom
Rama Gutierrez. She also claimed that of expression with the protection of
she had no malice in writing the article. individual rights and reputation.
However, the RTC convicted Fermin of
libel and ordered her to pay moral Application:
damages to the Gutierrez couple.
In the case at bar, the court ruled in
The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the favor of the Gutierrez family, finding
petitioner's motion for reconsideration, Fermin guilty of libel. The court held
finding it without merit. Following the that Fermin's article contained
denial of the motion for malicious and false statements that
reconsideration by the CA, the imputed crimes, vices, and defects
petitioner filed a petition with the to the complainants, which had the
Supreme Court. potential to cause dishonor,
discredit, or contempt. The court
also considered Fermin's close
association with political candidates
during an election campaign,
indicating a motive to harm the
reputation of the complainants
during the electoral contest.

Conclusion:

Thus, the Decision of the Court of


Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner is
sentenced to pay a fine of ₱6,000.00
in each case, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The award of moral damages in
favor of complainants ₱500,000.00
each. Costs are to be borne by the
petitioner.

2. De Mesa v. De Mesa and other petitioners 1. Whether or not Thesis:


Pepsi Cola (plaintiffs) held soft drink bottle caps the dismissal of
Products Phils., with the number 349, believing it to be the plaintiffs' Yes, the dismissal of the plaintiffs'

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy