Professional Documents
Culture Documents
versus
Islamic Dawah
Council of the
Philippines
Case Analysis
Alman-Najar L. Namla
Law 119.1 Legal Logic
MVRS Publications v. Islamic Dawah Council of the Phils
Case Analysis
I. Parties involved
Petitioner MVRS Publication, (MVRS) MARS C.
LACONSAY, MYLA C. AGUJA and AGUSTINO G. BINEGAS,
JR.
vs.
Respondents - ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC(IDCP)., ABDUL-RAHMAN R.T. LINZAG,
IBRAHIM F.P. ARCILLA, ABDUL RASHID DE GUZMAN, ALFARED DA SILVA and IBRAHIM B.A. JUNIO, respondents.
II. Prior Proceedings
On 30 June 1995 the trial court dismissed the complaint holding
that the plaintiffs failed to establish their cause of action since the
persons allegedly defamed by the article were not specifically
identified It must be noted that the persons allegedly defamed, the herein
plaintiffs, were not identified with specificity. The subject article
was directed at the Muslims without mentioning or identifying the
herein plaintiffs. It is thus apparent that the alleged libelous article
refers to the larger collectivity of Muslims for which the readers of
the libel could not readily identify the personalities of the persons
2
they did not hurt anybody and they did not have the intention of
defaming the Muslims or causing disparage against them. They
prayed that there isnt really any case of libel in this case due to the
missing element of person being pertained to in the said article. They
also attacked the right of the Muslims to institute and action as a
class suit. And lastly, claiming innocence, they wanted the higher
court to erase the damages imposed upon them which include moral
damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.
On the part of IDCP, they were aiming at the substantive protection
given to them by the law against defamation. The article was clearly
pertaining to the Muslims. This was derogatory in nature and thus
they are entitled to damages.
V. Key Facts
An article was published in Bulgar, a tabloid, about how Muslims do
not eat pigs and other animals and treat such animals as gods.
They also say it was published with the intent to hurt their
the object of the article and so the complainants (the Muslims) are
not entitled to damages
opinion
CA reversed.
VI.
Issues
1st: where the group referred to is large, the courts presume that
no reasonable reader would take the statementas so literally
applying to each individual member
2nd: the limitation on liability would satisfactorily safeguard
freedom of speech, expression, and of the press, effecting a sound
compromise between the conflicting fundamental interests
involved in libel cases
10
Under the right of free speech, there is no such thing as a false idea.
Petition granted.
Vitug, J. concurs
Carpio, J. dissents:
This case is not about a libel which requires the identification of the
plaintiff in the libelous statement.
if this were a libel case under NCC 30, which authorizes a separate
civil action to recover civil liability arising from a criminal offense,
Carpio agrees that case will not prosper for want of identification of
the libeled persons. But this case is not anchored on NCC 30.
Respondents (the Muslims) insist that the case is about tortuous
conduct under NCC 26.
unlike actions in NCC 30 which must arise from a criminal offense,
the action under NCC 26 may not constitute a criminal offense.
NCC (4), which refers to acts humiliating another for his religious
beliefs, is embraced in the tort known as intentional infliction of
mental or emotional distress.
This case must be decided on whether there was such tortuous
conduct or not.
in intentional infliction of mental distress, the opinion of the
community is immaterial. What is material is the harm to plaintiffs
mental and emotional state.
Austria-Martinez, J. dissents:
In libel cases, its 4 elements must be established by mere
preponderance of evidence. However, these elements are not essential
in a cause of action based on tort under NCC 26, where one is liable
13
14