MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc.

Petitioners: MVRS Publications, Inc., Mars C. Laconsay, Myla C. Aguja and Agustino
C. Binegas, Jr.
Respondents: Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., Abdul-Rahman RT
Linzag, Ibrahim FP Arcilla, Abdul Rashid de Guzman, etc
Topic: Free Speech
Facts:
Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., a local federation of more than
70 Muslim religious organizations and individual Muslims filed in the RTCManila a complaint for damages in their own behalf and as a class suit in
behalf of the Muslim members nationwide against MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
etc. arising from an article published in the 1 August 1992 issue of Bulgar, a
daily tabloid.
The article reads:
"ALAM BA NINYO?
Na ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi
kinakain ng mga Muslim?
Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay. Hindi nila ito
kailangang kainin kahit na sila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam sa
tuwing sila ay kakain. Ginagawa nila itong Diyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa
tuwing araw ng kanilang pangingilin lalung-lalo na sa araw na tinatawag
nilang 'Ramadan'."

The complaint alleged that

1.) the libelous statement was insulting and damaging to the Muslims;
2.) that these words alluding to the pig as the God of the Muslims was not
only published out of sheer ignorance but with intent to hurt the feelings,
cast insult and disparage the Muslims and Islam, as a religion in this
country, in violation of law, public policy, good morals and human
relations
3.) that on account of these libelous words Bulgar insulted not only the
Muslims in the Philippines but the entire Muslim world, especially every
Muslim individual in non-Muslim countries.
MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC., and AGUSTINO G. BINEGAS, JR., in their defense,
contended that
1.) the article did not mention respondents as the object of the article and
therefore were not entitled to damages; and,
2.) that the article was merely an expression of belief or opinion and was
published without malice nor intention to cause damage, prejudice or
injury to Muslims.
The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that the plaintiffs failed to
establish their cause of action since the persons allegedly defamed by the
article were not specifically identified.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the TC. It opined that it was
clear... that the defamation was directed to all adherents of the Islamic
faith.
Hence, the petition for review.

Issues:
1. WoN private respondents have a cause of action and have the right to
institute a class suit
NO
There was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by
the Bulgar article. Since the persons allegedly defamed could not be
identifiable, private respondents have no individual causes of action; hence,
they cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged.
An individual Muslim has a reputation that is personal, separate and distinct
in the community.
o Each Muslim, as part of the larger Muslim community in the Philippines
of over five (5) million people, belongs to a different trade and
profession; each has a varying interest and a divergent political and
religious view some may be conservative, others liberal.
o There is no injury to the reputation of the individual Muslims who
constitute this community that can give rise to an action for group
libel. Each reputation is personal in character to every person.
o Together, the Muslims do not have a single common reputation that
will give them a common or general interest in the subject matter of
the controversy.
Principle: As the size of these groups increases, the chances for members of
such groups to recover damages on tortuous libel becomes elusive.
The Muslim community is too vast as to readily ascertain who among the
Muslims were particularly defamed. The size of the group renders the
reference as indeterminate and generic as a similar attack on Catholics,
Protestants, Buddhists or Mormons would do.
2. WoN an emotional distress tort is applicable in this case
NO
An "emotional distress" tort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civil action
filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility due
to personal attacks on his character.
It is not applicable in the present case since no particular individual was
identified in the disputed article of Bulgar.
Also, the purported damage caused by the article falls under the principle of
relational harm (harm to social relationships in the community in the form of
defamation) as distinguished from reactive harm (infliction of emotional
distress).
o Respondents asserted an alleged harm to the standing of Muslims in
the community.
3. WoN respondents can claim damages

NO
None of the requirements to sustain an award for damages were adequately
established by respondents.
(ex. Moral damages existence of factual basis; Exemplary damages right
to moral, temperate, liq or compensatory damages)