On the rewarding side is the consumer that has been underserved by other agents and somehow involves you for assist. The Court said that whereas it could appear that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social duty to a member of the association which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter sent to a member, nevertheless, a studying of the subject letter-reply addressed to respondent doesn’t present any rationalization concerning the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as in opposition to the claim of respondent’s shopper. In utilizing phrases comparable to “lousy”, “inutile”, “carabao English”, “stupidity”, cty xây dựng and “satan”, the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and status of respondent as a lawyer which uncovered him to ridicule. The phrases as written had only the impact of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as legal officer within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for thus many years till his retirement and afterwards as marketing consultant of the identical company and likewise a notary public. Needless so that you can cite particular provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the same is irrelevant to the present case. This công ty xây dựng!
Applying by analogy the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular 13-2001 which modified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which laid down a rule of choice in the applying of the penalties provided for in B.P. Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; and, below the general rule laid down in Article 354, “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown”. The Court held that because the letter is not a privileged communication, “malice is presumed” beneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even when or not it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown”, except in the following cases: “(1) a private communication made by any particular person to another within the performance of any legal, moral, or social obligation; and (2) a good and true report, made in good faith, with none comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which aren’t of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of every other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions”. version!
The Court stated that in order to prove that a statement falls throughout the purview of a professional privileged communication below Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal, ethical, or social obligation to make the communication, or not less than, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty within the matter, and who has the power to furnish the safety sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and with out malice. May we remind you that any attempt on your part to proceed harassing the person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious way than what is necessary in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and displaying malicious intent on petitioner’s half. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He never knew respondent previous to the demand letter despatched by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his help thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a non-public communication made within the performance of his “moral and social obligation because the lawyer-in-reality of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate” the place Mrs. Quingco is a acknowledged tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, thus in the character of a privileged communication and never libelous. Gauging from the above-mentioned exams, the phrases used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 despatched by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The sufferer of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all involved. On that same day, Atty. Not personally knowing who the sender was, Atty.