Marilou Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People of the Philippines

Posted Jan 10, 2018

By Anonymous

6 min read

Case Title and Citation

Marilou Punongbayan-Visitacion, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Carmelita P. Punongbayan, respondents.
G.R. No. 194214, January 10, 2018
Supreme Court - Third Division
Ponente: Samuel R. Martires

Facts

Petitioner Marilou Punongbayan-Visitacion was corporate secretary and assistant treasurer of St. Peter’s College of Iligan City.
On July 26, 1999, acting on advice of counsel, Visitacion wrote and circulated a letter to private respondent Carmelita P. Punongbayan and others accusing Punongbayan of, inter alia:
1. falsely presenting herself as the school’s validly appointed/designated president;
2. taking actions as Officer-in-Charge without prior consultation and ratification of management committees; and
3. having “knowingly committed acts of falsification” in representing to a bank that her signature was required for disbursements above ₱5,000.
Offended, Punongbayan filed a criminal complaint for libel. On October 25, 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City approved the filing of libel charges.
On May 12, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 5, Iligan City) convicted Visitacion of libel, sentenced her to one (1) year imprisonment, and ordered payment of moral damages in the amount of ₱3,000,000.
Visitacion filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking relief; the CA dismissed the petition on January 30, 2009 and denied reconsideration on October 18, 2010.
At the Supreme Court, Visitacion no longer contested the conviction but sought relief as to the penalty imposed and the amount of moral damages. Administrative Circular No. 08-08 (January 25, 2008), which expresses a policy preference for imposition of fines rather than imprisonment in libel cases, was cited by the Court in the proceedings.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals acted contrary to law when it, in effect, brushed aside petitioner’s alternative plea for the application of preference of fine over imprisonment as penalty for libel?
Whether the Court of Appeals acted contrary to law when it, in effect, affirmed the court a quo’s imposition of moral damages upon petitioner in the excessive amount of Three Million Pesos (₱3,000,000.00)?
Whether the Court of Appeals acted contrary to law in not treating petitioner’s petition for certiorari as an appeal, notwithstanding that it was filed within the reglementary period to file an appeal and despite existence of valid reasons to treat it as an appeal?

Ruling

Yes - The Supreme Court found that the policy in A.C. No. 08-08 favors the imposition of a fine rather than imprisonment in libel cases and, given the circumstances (first-time offender; limited publication), a fine was sufficient; the CA should have given effect to that preference.
Yes - The Court held the ₱3,000,000 award of moral damages to be excessive and reduced it to ₱500,000 as a more reasonable recompense for the injury suffered.
Yes - The Supreme Court exercised the exception to the non-interchangeability rule and treated the petition for certiorari as an appeal because it was filed within the reglementary period and the interest of substantial justice warranted relaxation of the rule.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

On remedy interchangeability:
- General rule: certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal; remedies are mutually exclusive (citing Madrigal Transport, Butuan Development Corporation v. CA).
- Exceptions permit treating a certiorari as an appeal where public welfare, broader interest of justice, nullity of writs, or oppressive exercise of judicial authority make it appropriate (citing Department of Education v. Cuanan).
- The Court treated Visitacion’s certiorari as an appeal because it was filed within the 15-day reglementary period and substantial justice required liberal application of the rules; jurisprudence shows relaxation often occurs when the special action is timely filed.
On preference for fine over imprisonment:
- A.C. No. 08-08 embodies Supreme Court policy preferring fines for libel, while preserving judicial discretion to impose imprisonment when necessary.
- Considering Visitacion was a first-time offender and the libelous letter had limited dissemination, the Court concluded a fine would best serve justice and that imprisonment was unnecessary; accordingly the sentence was modified to a fine of ₱6,000 with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent.
On moral damages:
- Moral damages in libel are recoverable without proof of pecuniary loss (Art. 2219(7) Civil Code; cited cases such as Tulfo).
- The amount must reasonably approximate the injury suffered and must not be palpably or scandalously excessive (citing Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle).
- Applying these principles and the circumstances of publication and injury, the Court found ₱3,000,000 excessive and reduced the award to ₱500,000.
On issues raised for the first time on appeal:
- While issues ordinarily not raised below are not entertained, courts may consider them when there is lack of jurisdiction, plain error, jurisprudential developments, or matters of public policy (citing Del Rosario v. Bonga and related authority). The Court relied on such exceptions to address the contested penalties and damages.
On trial in absentia:
- The CA had invoked Rule 120, Section 6 (trial in absentia) to justify promulgation despite Visitacion’s absence; the Supreme Court’s decision did not disturb the conviction but modified the penalty consistent with policy and circumstances.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Certiorari under Rule 65 is generally not a substitute for appeal, but courts may treat a timely-filed certiorari as an appeal under exceptions when substantial justice so requires.
Administrative Circular No. 08-08: judicial preference for imposing fines rather than imprisonment in libel cases, without removing imprisonment as an available penalty.
Moral damages for libel:
- Recoverable without proof of pecuniary loss.
- Amount must be reasonable and commensurate with the injury — not punitive or enriching.
Issues raised for the first time on appeal may be entertained in cases of lack of jurisdiction, plain error, jurisprudential developments, or public policy concerns.
Trial in absentia is permitted under Rule 120, Section 6, if the accused is duly notified but fails to appear.

Disposition

The petition is GRANTED.
The May 12, 2003 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Iligan City (Criminal Case No. 7939) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner Marilou Punongbayan-Visitacion is:
1. sentenced to pay a fine of Six Thousand Pesos (₱6,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. ordered to pay private respondent Carmelita P. Punongbayan moral damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were listed; the decision shows concurrence by the other members of the Third Division.

Significance / Notes

The decision illustrates the Court’s willingness to relax procedural rules when a special action is timely filed and the interests of substantial justice require it.
Reinforces A.C. No. 08-08’s policy preference for fines over imprisonment in libel cases while confirming judicial discretion remains to impose imprisonment in appropriate cases.
Clarifies that moral damages in libel must be reasonable and not excessive; appellate courts will reduce awards that are palpably disproportionate to the injury.
Confirms that first-time offender status and limited degree of publication are relevant mitigating considerations in sentencing for libel.
Affirms existing exceptions allowing appellate courts to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal under circumstances such as plain error, jurisdictional defects, or significant jurisprudential developments.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.