Understanding the Scope of Article 360 in Broadcast Libel Cases

William Tieng, Wilson Tieng, and Willy Tieng v. Hon. Judge Selma Palacio-Alaras, et al., G.R. No. 164845, 181732, 185315, July 13, 2021

In an era where information spreads rapidly through various media, the implications of defamation laws on broadcasters and content creators are more relevant than ever. Imagine a radio host, passionately discussing current events, only to face legal action for libel in a distant city. This scenario underscores the importance of understanding the jurisdiction of libel cases, particularly when it involves broadcast media. The Philippine Supreme Court’s decision in the case of the Tieng brothers versus Hilarion Henares Jr. addresses this very issue, clarifying the application of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code to radio and television broadcasts.

The case stemmed from allegations of libel made by the Tieng brothers against Henares for remarks made on his radio and television programs. The central legal question revolved around whether Article 360, which traditionally applies to written defamation, extends to libelous statements made through broadcast media. This decision not only impacts broadcasters but also sets a precedent for how defamation cases are handled in the digital age.

Legal Context: Article 360 and Its Application

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, was designed to prevent the harassment of those accused of libel by limiting the venue of libel cases. The provision states:

The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

This law aims to protect defendants from being dragged into court in remote locations, a concern that is equally relevant for broadcast media. The term “libel” in this context refers to any defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, as outlined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

To illustrate, consider a television station in Manila broadcasting a program that is heard nationwide. If a viewer in Davao feels defamed, without Article 360’s jurisdiction rules, they could potentially file a lawsuit in Davao, causing significant inconvenience to the broadcaster. This scenario highlights the need for clear guidelines on where such cases should be filed.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of the Tieng vs. Henares Case

The Tieng brothers filed multiple libel cases against Henares following remarks made on his radio and television shows. Henares moved to quash the informations, arguing that they failed to specify the venue as required by Article 360. The cases were heard in different courts, with Henares ultimately acquitted in one of the criminal cases.

The procedural journey was complex, involving multiple petitions and appeals. The Supreme Court’s decision focused on interpreting Article 360 in the context of broadcast media:

• The Court held that Article 360 applies to defamation through radio and television broadcasts, not just written defamation.
• It clarified that the venue for such cases should be the location of the radio or television station where the broadcast originated or the residence of the offended party at the time of the broadcast.
• The Court emphasized the need for the information to specifically allege these jurisdictional facts.

The Court’s reasoning included:

“If the defamatory statement is alleged to have been made through radio, Article 360 of the RPC — not Section 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court – is what governs in determining the venue of the action.”

“The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication.”

Practical Implications: Navigating Libel Jurisdiction

This ruling has significant implications for broadcasters and content creators. It establishes that libel cases related to radio and television must be filed in the jurisdiction of the broadcast’s origin or the offended party’s residence. This prevents the potential abuse of venue selection by complainants.

For businesses and individuals involved in media, understanding these jurisdictional rules is crucial. They must ensure that any legal action taken against them for defamation is filed in the appropriate court to avoid unnecessary legal battles.

Key Lessons:

• Ensure that any libel case filed against you for broadcast media specifies the correct jurisdiction as per Article 360.
• If you are considering filing a libel case, understand that you must do so in the jurisdiction where the broadcast originated or where you resided at the time of the offense.
• Be aware that similar rules may not apply to internet-based defamation, which poses unique challenges in determining jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code?

Article 360 limits the venue of libel cases to the location where the defamation was first published or where the offended party resided at the time of the offense.

Does Article 360 apply to radio and television broadcasts?

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that Article 360 extends to defamation through radio and television broadcasts.

Where should a libel case be filed if the defamation occurred on a broadcast?

The case should be filed in the court of the province or city where the broadcast originated or where the offended party resided at the time of the broadcast.

Can the venue of a libel case be waived?

No, under Article 360, venue is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.

How does this ruling affect internet-based defamation?

The ruling does not directly address internet-based defamation, which presents unique challenges in determining jurisdiction.

ASG Law specializes in media and defamation law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.