CANON 21- A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE

ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.

CANON 15, RULE 15.02- A LAWYER SHALL BE BOUND BY THE RULE ON PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION IN
RESPECT OF MATTERS DISCLOSED TO HIM BY A PROSPECTIVE CLIENT

GMA NETWORK, INC., ET AL. vs. JESUS G. BUSTOS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 146848 October 17, 2006

FACTS:
A libel complaint was filed against GMA NETWORK, INC and newscaster, Rey Vidal. The issue started from
the Petition for Mandamus filed by the unsuccessful examinees of the physician’s licensure examinations
before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC and the board of medical examiners to re-check and
reevaluate the test papers. As alleged, mistakes in the counting of the total scores and erroneous checking
of answers to test questions vitiated the results of the examinations.

As news writer and reporter of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. assigned to gather news from courts, among
other beats, its co-petitioner Rey Vidal covered the filing of the mandamus petition. After securing a copy
of the petition, Vidal composed and narrated the news coverage for the ten o'clock evening news edition
of GMA's Channel 7 Headline News, quoting thereof the allegations of the unsuccessful examiners that
the gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical and capricious checking that must have been going on for years
should now be stopped once and for all. Simultaneous with the news, was an old video footage showing
physicians wearing black armbands.

Along these lines, respondents claimed that the said report was false, malicious and one-sided. Vidal and
GMA Network, Inc., in reckless disregard for the truth, defamed them by word of mouth and simultaneous
visual presentation on GMA Network, Inc.'s Channel 7. They added that, the showing of the unrelated old
footage was done purposely so as to make a forceful impact on their audience making it appear that other
doctors were supporting and sympathizing with the complaining unsuccessful examinees.

In defense of the alleged libel, GMA Network argued that the same was but a privileged communication.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the said news report was within the ambit of privileged communication
2. Whether the said narration of the news reporter and the used of video footage were libelous

HELD:
1. Yes. The disputed news report consists merely of a summary of the allegations in the said Petition for
Mandamus filed by the medical examinees making the same fall within the protected ambit of privileged
communication. GMA and Vidal cannot be held liable for damages claimed by respondents for simply
bringing to fore information on subjects of public concern.

Privileged matters may be absolute or qualified. Absolutely privileged matters are not actionable
regardless of the existence of malice in fact. In absolutely privileged communications, the mala or bona
fides of the author is of no moment as the occasion provides an absolute bar to the action. On the other
hand, in qualifiedly or conditionally privileged communications, the freedom from liability for an
otherwise defamatory utterance is conditioned on the absence of express malice or malice in fact. The
second kind of privilege, in fine, renders the writer or author susceptible to a suit or finding of libel
provided the prosecution established the presence of bad faith or malice in fact. To this genre belongs
"private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks" falling under and
described as exceptions in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.

However, the enumeration under the aforecited Article 354 is not an exclusive list of conditional privilege
communications as the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the speech and of the press has expanded
the privilege to include fair commentaries on matters of public interest.The news telecast in question
clearly falls under the second kind of privileged matter.

2. No, the statement in the news report falls within the ambit of privileged communication. For, although
every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, the presumption does not exist in matters
considered privileged.

Furthermore, neither the insertion of the file video constitute malice on the part of the petitioners.
Contrary to the CA's findings, the identifying character-generated words "file video" appeared to have
been superimposed on screen, doubtless to disabuse the minds of televiewers of the idea that a particular
footage is current. In the words of the trial court, the phrase "file video" was "indicated on screen
purposely to prevent misrepresentation so as not to confuse the viewing public." The trial court added
the observation that "the use of file footage in TV news reporting is a standard practice." the absence of
the accompanying character-generated words "file video" would not nevertheless, change the legal
situation insofar as the privileged nature of the audio-video publication complained of is concerned. In
view of the state of things, the video footage was not libel in disguise; standing without accompanying
sounds or voices, it was meaningless, or, at least, conveyed nothing derogatory in nature.

People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Raul Sesbreno

G.R. No. L-62449 July 16, 1984

FACTS:
Atty. Sesbreno and Atty. Ramon Ceniza are opposing counsels in a civil case. At one point in said civil case,
Atty. Ceniza asked for a transfer of hearing. It was granted but Sesbreno and his client still appeared on
the supposed trial date because they denied that they ever received notice of the postponement.
Sesbreno then filed a motion to have Ceniza reimburse them the expenses they made that day. Ceniza
opposed said motion and he showed evidence that Sebreno in fact received the notice of the
postponement of the hearing. The trial court then directed Sesbreno to show cause why he should not be
subject to contempt. In the subsequent pleadings, Ceniza accused Sesbreno of misrepresentation
prevarication, and “telling a barefaced and documented lie.” Sesbreno then filed a Reply where he
accused Ceniza of being an irresponsible person, cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and irresponsible
childish prankster. Ceniza then filed a libel case against Sesbreno.

ISSUE: Whether or not the libel case should prosper.

HELD:
No. Pleadings filed in court are covered by privileged communication. They are privileged insofar as they
are relevant to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. HOWEVER, both lawyers are advised by the
Supreme Court to refrain from using language unbecoming of a member of the Bar and to extend courtesy
and respect to their brothers in the profession. They were warned that a repetition of same infraction will
be dealt with severely. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language should be
dignified. Choice of language is a very important requirement in the preparation of pleadings.
Appropriately, in the assertion of their client’s rights, lawyers — even those gifted with superior intellect
— are enjoined to rein up their tempers. Greater care and circumspection must be exercised in the
preparation of their pleadings and to refrain from using abrasive and offensive language.

Selby vs. Burgess 712 S.W.2d 898 (1986)

FACTS:

Dr. Michael Selby, is an obstetrician-gynecologist. Melinda Burgess was a patient of Dr. Selby while she
was married to appellee, Robert Burgess. Burgess retained attorney Gary Eubanks to represent him in
bringing an alienation of affections claim against Dr. Selby, claiming that Dr. Selby had caused Melinda
Burgess, who apparently later married Dr. Selby, to abandon Robert Burgess. The complaint alleged that
Dr. Selby had induced Melinda Burgess to undergo an abortion and had thereafter impregnated her
himself.

Dr. Selby counterclaimed contending that Burgess, "personally and through his duly authorized agent, his
lawyer Gary Eubanks," slandered him by stating to third persons that Dr. Selby had performed an
unnecessary abortion on Melinda Burgess.

The alienation of affections claim resulted in a judgment in favor of Dr. Selby. Burgess moved for a
summary judgment on the slander claim, arguing that any statements Eubanks might have made to third
persons in the course of investigating the alienation of affections claim were true as well as privileged.
The argument submitted with the motion, however, did not address the part of the counterclaim stating
that Burgess had "personally" slandered Dr. Selby.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellee Robert Burgess is liable for slander with respect to the allegations of
statements made by his lawyer Gary Eubanks.

HELD:

The Restatement of Torts (Second) § 586 provides:

*900 An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in
communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the
course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to
the proceeding.

We adopted the principle of § 586 in Pogue v. Cooper, 284 Ark. 202, 680 S.W.2d 698 (1984). There we
held that absolute privilege attached to allegations made by an attorney in a pleading filed with the court,
as long as the statements alleged to be defamatory were relevant and pertinent to the issues in the case.
We relied heavily on our earlier decision of Mauney v. Millar, 142 Ark. 500, 219 S.W. 1032 (1920), in which
we recognized the absolute privilege of an attorney to make statements in pleadings regardless of their
truth or the existence of actual malice on the part of the attorney so long as the statements were relevant
and pertinent to the pleadings.
We have no difficulty extending the privilege to statements by an attorney made, as § 586 says,
"preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding." The section obviously covers communications made
during investigation of a claim. Comment e. to § 586 is as follows:

As to communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding the rule stated in this Section applies
only when the communication has some relation to a proceeding that is contemplated in good faith and
under serious consideration. The bare possibility that the proceeding might be instituted is not to be used
as a cloak to provide immunity for defamation when the possibility is not seriously considered.

Although the privilege is absolute where it applies, we consider it to be a privilege narrowed closely by
the "relevancy" and "pertinency" requirements, and we note that while the privilege will prohibit an
attorney from being subject to litigation it will not make him immune from professional discipline, see
Theiss v. Scherer, supra, when it is appropriate. We make no suggestion that any professional discipline is
called for in this case.

It was correct for the court to find no liability with respect to the allegations of statements made by Gary
Eubanks, as the discovery documents showed his publication of the allegedly slanderous statement
occurred preliminary to or in the course of litigation, and that the statements he allegedly made were
relevant and pertinent to that litigation.