SYHUNLIONG VS RIVERA

FACTS:
Syhunliong and Rivera are respectively the private complainant and
defendant in a crime of Libel filed by the former. On April 16, 2007,
complainant charged Rivera for the crime of Libel citing the text messages
sent by Rivera claiming his unclaimed salaries, benefits and incentives was
pending before the herein complainant after he resigned from BANFF Realty
and Development Corporation which complainant was the president. The
following text messages were sent by the respondent where the filing of the
complaint was based: Arpil 6, 2006, at around 11:55 A. M.-I am exepcting
that grabe talaga sufferings ko dyan hanngang pagkuha ng last pay ko. I
dont deserve this because I did my job when I was still there. God Bless.
Sana yung pagsimba niya, alam niya real meaning. Minutes later:
Kailangan release niya lahat nang makukuha ko diyan including incentive up
to the late date na nandyan ako para di na kami abot sa labor. Respondent
argued that the text message, which was the subject of the libel complaint,
merely reflected the undue stress the complainant had suffered due to the
delay in the release of her unpaid salaries, benefits and incentives. Rivera
argued in the Motion to Quash filed with the RTC contending that the RTC had
no longer jurisdiction of Syhunliongs complaint as it was already prescribed
provided for in Arts 90 and 91 of the RPC. He also argued that the crime
charged did not constitute libel and can be raised even after arraignment
and is broad enough to cover within its ambit lack of probable cause.
ISSUE: Whether or not the facts charged in the information that an offense
of libel has been committed and whether or not the offense charged had
been already prescribed.
RULINGS:
CA Ruling- No. Our criminal law convincingly provide us with a definition of
libel- It is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person.
We hold that the text message is not actionable. It does not serve to cast a
shadow on Syhunliongs character and integrity, there being no direct and
personal imputation of a venality to him. At best, the statement that
Syhunliong should understand the meaning of the mass suggest that he
should be more compassionate and caring to the employee. The matter
contained in the text message is privileged communication under Art 354 of
the RPC which negates the existence of malice in- a private communication
made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty.

SC Ruling- No. Prescription had set in. In the case at bar, it is extant in the
records that Syhunliong filed his complaint against Rivera more than one
year after the allegedly libelous message was sent to Lumapas. Whether the
date of the filing of the complaint is April 16, 2007 or August 18, 2007, it
would not alter the fact that its institution was made beyond the prescriptive
period provided for in Art 90 of the RPC. The court finds no persuasive reason

why Rivera should be deprived of the benefits accruing from the prescription
of the crime ascribed to her. Prescription of the crime is already a compelling
reason for this Court to order the dismissal of the libel information, but the
Court still stresses that the text message which Rivera sent to Lumapas falls
within the purview of a qualified privliged communication. The rule on
privileged communication means that a communication made in good faith
on any subject matter in which the communicator has an interest, or
concerning which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a
corresponding duty. In the case at bar, it was Lumapas who informed Rivera
of either the delay or denial of the latters claims for payment of salaries,
benefits and incentives by Syhunliong. Rivera expressed through the subject
text message her grievances to Lumapas. At that time, Lumapas was the
best person who could help expedite the release of Riveras claims.