Soriano vs.

IAC

Marcelo Soriano and six (6) others were charged in an information for libel in connection with
press releases and articles published in The Guardian, a weekly newspaper/magazine circulated
in Tacloban City of which Soriano was the Editor-Publisher, imputing to Francisco Tantuico Jr.,
the then Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) the tampering, at the latters behest, by
COA personnel of election returns in the 14 May 1984 Batasan Elections at his residence in
Tacloban City and COA Regional Office in Palo, Leyte to assure the victory of certain candidates.
Petitioner Soriano filed a motion to quash on the ground of improper venue contending that
since Tantuico holds office and the publication house of The Guardian are in Quezon City, the
libel case should be filed in Quezon City, but was denied.

Whether or not the libel case should be tried elsewhere.

YES. As the COA Chairman held office in Quezon City and the offending newspaper is published
in Quezon City, the case should be filed with a Quezon City court.

The article was published in Quezon City and was merely mimeographed in Tacloban. For
purposes of complying with the jurisdictional requirements of Art. 360 of the Revised Penal
Code, the liability of a Manila or Quezon City editor must be deemed as commencing with the
publication of the allegedly libelous material in his newspaper and not with the typing or
mimeographing of press releases by interested persons in different municipalities or cities,
copies of which are sent to metropolitan newspapers for national publication. The May 26-June
1, 1984 issue of THE GUARDIAN shows that the newspaper is published every Wednesday and
Saturday with editorial and business offices located at Room 201, Llames Building, 694 E. de los
Santos Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City. The intended circulation is nationwide. There is no
indication from the records, apart from the petitioner's receiving the press release and
publishing it in the GUARDIAN, that he had a hand in its preparation and distribution from
Tacloban City.
Exequiel Victorio hired the services of Atty. L. Castillo in an administrative case against Judge
Guiang which was assigned to Judge Ramon Avancena. During the hearing of the administrative
case in the sala of Judge Avancena, Atty. Castillo presented a very urgent motion to disqualify
Judge Avancena from hearing the case. Atty. Ruiz, counsel for Judge Guiang moved to cite Atty.
Castillo for contempt. After the hearing, Victorio and his son, Daniel were walking down the
corridor. Danilo then began uttering defamatory words against Atty. Ruiz: Kayabang ng
putang-inang abogadong Ruiz na iyan, tunawnaman ang utak, suwapang at estapador to
which his father replied, Lastog ta ukinnanata abogado Ruiz, suwapang, estapador,paltogak ta
ukinana ta abogado Ruiz, suwapang ken estapador. They were overheard by Emiliano
Manuzon, a policeman.

Whether the defamatory words constitute serious oral defamation or simply slight oral
defamation.

The defamatory words constitute serious oral defamation.

Defamatory words may be serious or slight depending on: their sense and grammatical
meaning, judging them separately x x x special circumstances of the case x x x antecedents or
relationship between the offended party and offender, which might tend to prove the intention
of the offender at that time

Defamatory words uttered specically against a lawyer when touching on his profession are
libelous per se. In the instant case, appellant-petitioner imputed thecrime of estafa against a
prominent lawyer one time Justice of the Peace andmember of the Provincial Board of
Nueva Ecija, a professor of law and for sometimea president of the Nueva Ecija Bar Association.
As the scurrilous imputation strikesdeep into the character of the victim, no special
circumstance need be shown for thedefamatory words uttered to be considered grave oral
defamation. In addition, the fact that the oended party is a lawyer, the totality of suchwords
as "kayabang", "tunaw ang utak", "swapang at estapador", imputed againsthim has the import
of charging him with dishonesty or improper practice in theperformance of his duties, hence,
actionable per se.