On the rewarding facet is the client that has been underserved by other brokers and someway involves you for assist. The Court acknowledged that whereas it would seem that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social obligation to a member of the affiliation which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand cty xây dựng letter sent to a member, however, a reading of the subject letter-reply addressed to respondent does not show any rationalization regarding the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as in opposition to the declare of respondent’s consumer. In using words similar to «lousy», «inutile», «carabao English», «stupidity», and «satan», the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and status of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. The phrases as written had only the impact of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as authorized officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for therefore many years until his retirement and afterwards as marketing consultant of the same agency and likewise a notary public. Needless for you to cite specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the identical is irrelevant to the current case.
Applying by analogy the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular 13-2001 which modified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which laid down a rule of choice in the applying of the penalties supplied for in B.P. Any of the imputations coated by Article 353 is defamatory; and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it's shown». The Court held that because the letter will not be a privileged communication, «malice is presumed» underneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code gives «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even when it's true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown», except in the next cases: "(1) a non-public communication made by any individual to a different in the efficiency of any legal, ethical, or social duty; and (2) a fair and true report, made in good faith, with none comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any assertion, report, or speech delivered in mentioned proceedings, or of another act performed by public officers within the exercise of their functions".This content was generated by Công ty xây dựng.
The Court said that with the intention to show that a statement falls throughout the purview of a qualified privileged communication beneath Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the one who made the communication had a authorized, ethical, or social responsibility to make the communication, or at least, had an curiosity to protect, which curiosity may both be his personal or of the one to whom it's made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty within the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements within the communication are made in good faith and without malice. May we remind you that any attempt on your half to continue harassing the particular person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious approach than what is important in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and exhibiting malicious intent on petitioner’s half.
He never knew respondent previous to the demand letter despatched by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his help thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a personal communication made within the efficiency of his «moral and social duty because the legal professional-in-truth of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate» the place Mrs. Quingco is a recognized tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, thus in the character of a privileged communication and never libelous. Gauging from the above-talked about tests, the phrases used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 despatched by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s topic letter-reply itself states that the identical was copy furnished to all involved. On that same day, Atty. Not personally knowing who the sender was, Atty.