3-time MOKA loser loses libel suit a 3rd time

DOJ junks Romero petition

ANGELES CITY – Three times losing in his nomination for the Most Outstanding Kapampangan Award (MOKA) in the field of business.

Three times losing in his libel complaint against Punto.

That is one Rene G. Romero who, in his suit against this paper identified himself as “the president of the Pampanga  Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the chairman of the Advocacy for the Development of Central Luzon, and the private sector representative for business of the Regional Development Council.”

In a resolution promulgated on May 27, 2013, the Department of Justice dismissed Romero’s petition for review of the resolution of the City Prosecutor of the City of San Fernando dismissing the complaint of Romero against Punto columnist Caesar Z, Lacson, then-editor Joey R. Aguilar, general manager Gener C. Endona and marketing manager Joana Nina V. Cordero for libel.

‘In dismissing the complaint for libel, the City Prosecutor found the subject article to be not libellous. Also, in denying complainant’s motion for reconsideration, the City Prosecutor found it to be not verified and affirmed the findings that the subject article is not libellous. Thus, this petition for review, which must fail,” said the resolution penned by Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano.

The resolution furthered: “Firstly, Section 12 in relation to Section 7 of Department Circular No. 70 provides that the Secretary of Justice may, motu proprio, dismiss outright a petition for review if there is no showing of any reversible error in the questioned resolution or when the issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.”

“As found by the City Prosecutor, the comment of respondent Lacson in his article entitled “Romero Ululating” published in Punto! Central Luzon is merely a reaction to complainant’s lamentations entitled “Sector: Why no biz awardee in MOKA” that was published in Sun Star Pampanga,” continued the resolution.

And concluded: “Indeed, respondent Lacson’s comment thereto was in the exercise of his right to reply to complainant’s accusation, considering that respondent Lacson was one of the judges in MOKA…Thus, he is free to express his personal views and also to defend MOKA.”      

Romero was nominated in the business category of the Most Outstanding Kapampangan Awards for 2010 where no winner was declared. It was said to be the third time he was nominated for the award in the terms of three governors and with three different panels of judges.

Romero filed the libel complaint in December 2010 which was dismissed in June 2011 whereby he immediately filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in December 2011, finally filing the petition for review with the DOJ which was dismissed last May.

June 2011: Case Dismissed

“There was nothing defamatory in the questioned article of Lacson” penned 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Nereo T. Dela Cruz as he “respectfully recommended that the complaints of Libel (2 counts) against all the respondents be DISMISSED.” Which was duly approved on June 16, 2011 by Deputy Regional Prosecutor Giselle Marie S. Geronimo.
Thus was junked the P20-million libel charges filed Romero against Punto in December 2010.

Romero had called Lacson’s article as “baseless allegations…shameful, heinous and unequivocally malicious, while being entirely false, malicious, offensive and derogatory to my good name, character and reputation tending to besmirch and destroy my honor, character and reputation – all to my damage and prejudice.”
Romero said the article also intended “to do interior and unjustifiable harm towards my profession and stature as a respected businessman in Pampanga and as head of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce…”
The city fiscal’s resolution dismissing the case however said: “A reading of the article in its entirety does not show any public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act omission condition status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor of Romero.”
Citing Lacson’s counter-affidavit, the decision also noted that the writer’s article is “deemed privileged, a personal opinion in defense of himself against the attacks of Romero.” “A fair comment and an exercise of the constitutional guarantee of free speech.”

December 2011: MR denied

“The grounds relied upon by the complainant in the filed motion (for reconsideration) are mere rehash of the arguments set forth in his complaint-affidavit and reply-affidavit both filed during the preliminary investigation and which were already threshed out in the assailed resolution.”
Thus the Office of the City Prosecutor here “DENIED” the “Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle” filed by Romero that sought to reconsider the June 16, 2011 resolution dismissing his libel complaint  against Punto.
In the resolution dated December 29, 2011 – a copy of which reached Punto only on January 13, 2012 – OIC-Deputy Regional Prosecutor Giselle Marie S. Geronimo reaffirmed the earlier resolution’s clearing Lacson of libel.

In his complaint, Romero argued that Lacson “overeacted, as shown in his choice of words” referring to him (Romero) as “ululating miserable loser; a blank ledger expecting a payback of whatever support he gives the provincial government; a spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop; a leech, a fool, and honor-chasing exploitative businessman who suck out the bones of laborers.”   
Contrary to Romero’s insistence, the resolution said: “In the instant case, the word “ululating” is definitely not derived from the Filipino word “ulol,”meaning crazy, but is a regular English word found in the dictionary and which does not impute any circumstance or condition to discredit complainant’s reputation.”
It furthered: “The same is true with the phrase ‘spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop.” While it may have offended the complainant, it is not the defamatory words within the contemplation of the law.
“The rest of the words and/or phrases alluded to by the complainant/movant (Romero), when read in its entirety, do not clearly refer to complainant (Romero) alone but to businessmen as a whole.”
Even as it granted that “some of the words and/or phrases used in the subject article may have been unpleasant” to Romero, the resolution cited MVRS Publications, Inc. et al., v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003 thus: “It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action or defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages.”
The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.” The emphasis supplied in the resolution.
The resolution reaffirmed that Romero “failed to establish that malice attended the writing and consequent publication” of Lacson’s article
Citing Arturo Borjal, et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,1999, the resolution said: “Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.”
“Such malice, the complainant (Romero) failed to establish in the instant case,” the resolution concluded.

‘Triumph of press freedom’

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines-Pampanga Chapter, which expressed solidarity with the respondents, has deemed the dismissal of Romero’s petition for review as “a triumph not only for Punto but for all harassed mediamen in the country.”

“For too long, libel has been used as a weapon of aggression by the powers-that-be, by the arrogant rich in suppressing the basic right for free expression,” said Ashley Manabat, NUJP-Pampanga chairman. “Today, freedom of the press stands triumphant.”

Manabat however cautioned members of the media to be “ever-vigilant, as the freedom of expression continues to be under threat.” 
(Banner story of Punto! Gitnang Luzon, July 10-11, 2013 issue)