TOPIC: Crimes Against Honor Libel

Malit v. People
GR No. L-58681

Date of Promulgation:May 31, 1982

Ponente:Relova, J.
Petitioner: Alfredo Malit
Respondent: People of the Philippines and Hon.Judge Ofilada (Caloocan City Court)
Nature: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Digest By:ECPPotian

Doctrine: Where the libelous or slanderous words or statements published in

the course of judicial proceedings are connected with, or are relevant, pertinent
or material to, the cause in hand or subject of inquiry, they may be considered
privileged communication, and the counsel, parties or witnesses are exempt
from liability.
Brief:
During the trial of an administrative case filed by Dr. Macaspac against Ruth
Fernandez, Dr. Macaspac on cross-examination by petitioner Atty. Malit,
counsel for the respondent, was asked if she knew the person who "made" a
certain exhibit. Evading the question, Dr. Macaspac stated that she did not
understand the word "made." After explaining that the word means "prepared,"
Dr. Macaspac, instead of answering, asked for clarification, prompting the
petitioner to utter the words "I doubt how did you become a doctor." A complaint
for slander was filed against petitioner and later, for unjust vexation. Petitioner
filed a motion to quash the information but this and a subsequent motion for
reconsideration were denied. The SC held that the statement was absolutely
privileged since it was uttered in the course of judicial proceedings, and thus
petitioner could not be held liable.
Facts:

Petitioner Alfredo Malit was Ruth Fernandezs counsel in an administrative

case filed against her by Dr. Corazon Macaspac. During the hearing, Dr.
Macaspac identified certain exhibits on the witness stand.
On cross-examination, petitioner asked Dr. Macaspac if she knew who
made a certain exhibit, to which she replied that she did not understand the
word made. Petitioner tried to explain that it meant prepared, but Dr.
Macaspac would not answer and instead asked for clarification.
Petitioner then said, I doubt how did you become a doctor. Dr. Macaspac
thus instituted a complaint for slander against petitioner.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash on the ground that "the facts charged do
not constitute an offense."
Respondent Judge denied the motion to quash, as well as the motion for
reconsideration raising the ground that the court has no jurisdiction because
the facts charged in the information are privileged communication.
Petitioner contended that the statement did not constitute an offense since it
was uttered during cross-examination, and that utterances made in the
course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON statements uttered in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely
privileged and exempt from liability in libel or slander cases
Held: YES
Ratio: Utterances made in the course of judicial or administrative proceedings are
absolutely privileged in aid and for the advantage of the administration of justice, so
that members of the legislature, judges, jurors, lawyers and witnesses may speak
freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring the risk of a criminal
prosecution or action for damages.

Absolute privilege is defined as In this class of cases it is considered in the

interest of public welfare that all persons should be allowed to express their
sentiments and speak their minds fully and fearlessly upon all questions and
subjects; and all actions for words so spoken are absolutely forbidden, even
if it be alleged and proved that the words were spoken falsely, knowingly and
with express malice.
Where the libelous or slanderous words published in the course of judicial
proceedings are connected with, or are relevant, pertinent or material to, the
cause in hand or subject of inquiry, they may be considered privileged
communication, and the counsel, parties or witnesses are exempt from
liability.
The courts are inclined to be liberal as to the degree of relevancy or
pertinence required to make the alleged defamatory matter privileged. For it
not to be covered by privilege, it must be so palpably wanting in relation to
the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its
irrelevance and impropriety. In the instant case, the utterance was made
when Dr. Macaspac would not answer and repeatedly evaded the question
posed to her and thus is relevant.

Dispositive:
TC orders reversed. Respondent ordered to desist and refrain from proceeding with
the trial of the criminal case.