On the rewarding side is the shopper that has been underserved by different agents and in some way comes to you for assist. The Court said that whereas it would seem that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social duty to a member of the affiliation which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter despatched to a member, nonetheless, a studying of the subject letter-reply addressed to respondent doesn't show any clarification regarding the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as towards the declare of respondent’s client. In using phrases similar to «lousy», «inutile», «carabao English», «stupidity», and «satan», the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and fame of respondent as a lawyer which uncovered him to ridicule. The words as written had only the effect 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 therefore many years until his retirement and afterwards as guide of the same company and also 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.
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 application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Any of the imputations lined by Article 353 is defamatory; and, beneath the general rule laid down in Article 354, «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it's true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it's shown». The Court held that for the reason that letter is just 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 if it's true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it's shown», except in the next cases: "(1) a personal communication made by any individual to a different within the performance of any authorized, moral, or social obligation; and (2) a good and true report, made in good religion, with none feedback or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or different official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in stated proceedings, or of some other act performed by public officers in the train of their functions".This content was generated by Công ty xây dựng.
The Court acknowledged that with a view to show that an announcement falls throughout the purview of a professional privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the one who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social responsibility to make the communication, or at the least, had an curiosity to protect, which curiosity could 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 responsibility in the matter, and who has the ability to furnish the safety sought; and (3) the statements within the communication are made in good faith and without malice. May we remind you that any try in your part to proceed harassing the person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious means than what is critical in answering a demand công ty xây nhà trọn gói letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good religion and showing malicious intent on petitioner’s half.
He by no means knew respondent previous to the demand letter despatched by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a private communication made within the efficiency of his «moral and social duty as the legal professional-in-fact of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate» where Mrs. Quingco is a recognized 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 tests, the phrases used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The sufferer of the libelous letter was identifiable as the topic letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s topic letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. On that very same day, Atty. Not personally knowing who the sender was, Atty.