[Lopez] G.R. No. 141994 January 17, 2005 objectivity in their broadcasts.

objectivity in their broadcasts. Also, they require broadcasters to secure KBP

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWROK, INC., petitioner vs. AGO MEDICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE (AMEC-
BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO, respondents
Topic: Corporate Powers in General
Doctrine: Since Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code does not qualify whether the plaintiff
is a natural or juridical person, a juridical person such as a corporation may validly
complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral damages.
Facts:
accreditation and permit.
8. RTC found FBNI and Alegre liable for libel, except Rima. It ruled that their
broadcasts had no factual basis as it did not even verify reports before airing
them. FBNI is liable because it failed to exercise due diligence. FBNI is jointly
and severally liable with Alegre.
9. CA affirmed RTC, but made Rima solidarily liable with FBNI and Alegre. They
held that:
a. Petitioners failed to overcome legal presumption of malice.
b. The imputations had no factual basis and petitioners failed to present
in court any of the students who allegedly complained against AMEC.
10. Hence, this petition for review. Among other arguments, FBNI contends that
AMEC is not entitled to moral damages because it is a corporation; and that
FBNI should not be liable since it exercised due diligence.

1. Expose is a radio documentary program hosted by Carmelo Rima (Rima) Issue: W/N FBNI is solidariliy liable for the crime libel.
and Hermogenes Alegre (Alegre). It aired over DZRC-AM which is owned by
Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (FBNI).
2. Rime and Alegre exposed various alleged complaints from students, teachers
and parents against Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian Held: Yes.
College of Medicine (AMEC).
1. *The Court lengthily discussed how libel is committed and how it applies to
3. AMEC and Angelita Ago (Ago), as Dean, filed a complaint for damages
this case* The Court ruled that such broadcasts were libelous, as it was not
against FBNI, Rima and Alegre, claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory
based on established facts, nor did the broadcasters verify or analyze the
and libelous.
reports before they aired it.
4. They allege that these portions were libelous (I rephrased):
2. The broadcasts also violate the Radio Code, which requires that such public
a. Medical students at AMEC has take up all subjects again, even
affairs program shall be free from inaccurate and misleading information.
those passed already, once they fail even one subject
3. Generally, a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages as it cannot
b. That the course in Physical Therapy is not recognized by DECS
experience physical suffering or other sentiments. CA cited Mambulao
c. AMEC accepts former teachers of Aquinas University but were
Lumber Co v. PNB, in justifying award of moral damages, stating that a
removed because of immorality. Hence, AMEC is a dumping ground,
corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a
not merely of moral and physical misfits.
ground for the award of moral damages. However, such statement is an
d. Dean Justita Lola (Ago), is already too old to teach. As in aviation,
obiter dictum.
your case is zero visibility.
4. Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral damages falls under Art. 2219 (7) of
e. When AMECs students become members of society outside
the Civil Code, which authorizes recovery of moral damages in libel,
campus, they are liabilities rather than assets.
defamation, etc. Such provision does not qualify whther plaintiff is a natural or
5. The complaint alleged that AMEC is a reputable learning institution. The
juridical person. Hence, a corporation can validly recover moral damages.
exposes destroyed plaintiffs reputation. The complaint included FBNI as
5. FBNI is also solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre. The basis of the present
defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and
action is a tort., and joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for such
supervision of its employees, Rima and Alegre.
tort committed. Hence, AMEC correctly anchored its cause of action on Art.
6. FBNI, Rima and Alegre countered that the broadcasts were fair and true. They
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
claimed that they were impelled by a sense of public duty to report the situation
6. As stated by CA, recovery for defamatory statemetns may be had from the
in AMEC, an institution imbued with public interest.
owner, a licensee, or operator of the station. Moreover, there is insufficient
7. Petitioners filed an MTD, which was denied. Hence, FBNI filed a separate
evidence that FBNI exercised due diligence in selection and supervision. Their
Answer, claiming that it exercised due diligence in selection and supervision
constant reminder for faitness is not enough to prove due diligence.
of Rima and Alegre, as shown by their hiring process (may interview and
7. There was also no clear and convincing evidence that shows that Rima and
training). They also remind broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and
Alegre underwent FBNIs hiring process.