CASE DIGEST:

GMA Network Inc., and Maya Reforma the managing director of AGB Nielsen, petitioners VS. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., respondents

FACTS:

1) On December 20, 2007, Judge Charito Gonzales, Quezon City Regional Trial Court Br. 80 released a Temporary Restraining Order1 on TV ratings surveys based on a civil case filed by ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation versus AGB Nielsen Media Research Philippines2. ABS-CBN accused rival GMA Network of funding bribing operations at Bacolod City, to discredit the former. The Court further ordered ABS-CBN to file comment on the plea of AGB Nielsen for the alleged gathering and dissemination of television ratings data, within five days or until 22 December.

2) On December 21, 2007, DZMM correspondent Junrie Hidalgo reported a news story entitled AGB Nielsen, umamin sa dayaan: GMA Network, tahasang itinurong nasa likod ng dayaan (AGB Nielsen admits the cheating: GMA Network fiercely accused of being responsible of the cheating) during the program Showbiz Mismo, hosted by Cristy Fermin and Jobert Sucaldito. The news story is based on an interview of AGB Nielsen's General Manager Maya Reforma regarding the alleged cheating.

3) In response, GMA aired a TV plug condemning the alleged biased reporting and denied the accusations of ABS-CBN. They later filed a P15-million (P10 million for moral damages, P2.5 million for exemplary damages, P1.5 million attorney’s fees and 1 million for litigation expenses) civil libel suit against ABS-CBN on 3 January 2008. The respondents included Hidalgo, Fermin, Sucaldito, the station manager and news manager of DZMM and hosts, writers and executive producers of TV programs Bandila, Entertainment Live and The Buzz after the same story was aired on the mentioned programs.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not ABS-CBN is liable for false and malicious allegations of ratings manipulation to plaintiff GMA even if it is true matter of public interest and right to know.

2) Whether or not ABS-CBN should be responsible for airing and letting their editors and writers to comment on the issues of manipulation of ratings.

3) Whether or not ABS-CBN is liable for preliminary injunction3.

DECISION/RULING OF THE CASE:

1) On January 7, 2008, the Quezon City RTC junked ABS-CBN's suit against AGB Nielsen, saying the case was "prematurely filed" before the court. Judge Charito Gonzales's basis is the principle of mutuality of contracts, citing Article 13084 and 11965, New Civil Code of the Philippines. Also, Judge Samuel Gaerlan, QCRTC, Branch 92 issued court summons against ABS-CBN and its 15 personnel, in the P15-million damage suit by GMA Network.

2) On January 17, 2008, Judge Gaerlan inhibited himself from the case, considering that he has a cousin working in the legal department of ABS-CBN. The case was later re-raffled on January 28, 2008, and the case was eventually

1A court order that lasts only until the court can hear further evidence; a court order of limited duration. A TRO commands the parties in the case to maintain a certain status until the court can hear further evidence and decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

2is a market research firm in the Philippines specializing in broadcast media conducting television ratings for certain areas in the Philippines, most notably in urban areas.3 a court order made in the early stages of a lawsuit or petition which prohibits the parties from doing an act which is in dispute, thereby maintaining the status quo until there is a final judgment after trial.4 The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.5 Whenever in an obligation a period is designated, it is presumed to have been established for the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor, unless from the tenor of the same or other circumstances it should appear that the period has been established in favor of one or of the other.

assigned to Judge Henri Inting of Branch 95, QCRTC. Judge Inting submitted GMA's petition for a temporary restraining order for decision.

3) On February 1, ABS-CBN presented two witnesses, Romie Diamanse and Francis Casumpang, saying RGMA head Mike Enriquez was said to have given the order to cheat in a meeting. Enriquez denied the charges and said that the statements were "shameless, malicious fiction delivered by tainted informers with an axe to grind." Diamanse and Casumpang were former employees of RGMA's Iloilo Campus Radio FM station. Casumpang resigned from the station after charges of embezzlement, and now works for ABS-CBN's MOR Iloilo. On the other hand, RGMA accepted Diamanse's resignation "because he was regarded as ineffective in his duties."

4) ABS-CBN then filed a petition for certiorari6 before the Court of Appeals to stop the implementation of the TRO. ABS-CBN maintained that “the issue of corruption as brought out by the discovery of the TV ratings manipulation is a matter of clear public interest7, and therefore needs to be reported on.” *as to the Doctrine of Privilege Communication8

HELD:

The Quezon City Regional Trial Court threw out a petition filed by GMA-7 which sought to stop ABS-CBN from airing reports about the alleged TV ratings manipulation scandal that purposedly cast “dishonor, discredit and disrepute” to the former.

Judge Alexander Balut in his ruling denied GMA-7 s petition for preliminary injunction on three grounds: ′

1) GMA-7 s petition to stop ABS-CBN’s supposedly libelous reports comes too late–the reports have already been′ aired;

2) GMA-7 s petition for injunction goes beyond the prayer contained in its complaint; and ′

3) GMA-7 s petition for injunction constitutes prior restraint′ 9 of freedom of expression and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Sources:

http://dictionary.law.com/;http://www.chanrobles.com/;http://www.batasnatin.com/;www. wikipedia .org/

Prepared by:

Nikko Norman C. IzarAB-Broadcast Communication

6 A writ that a superior appellate court issues in its discretion to an inferior court, ordering it to produce a certified record of a particular case it has tried, in order to determine whether any irregularities or errors occurred that justify review of the case.7 refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest, or whether the concept itself is a coherent one.8 This is a defense against the element of malice and it applies to both libel and oral defamation. This means that even if the material is considered libelous still there is no malice in the eyes of the law. These consist of two kinds: (a) Absolutely Privilege Communication and the (b) Qualifiedly Privileged Communication.9 an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement, which is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and free press (even in the guise of anti-nuisance ordinance).

University of the East - Manilanikkoizar@gmail.com/nikkoizar@yahoo.com