On the rewarding aspect is the client that has been underserved by different brokers and in some way involves you for assist. The Court stated that while it will appear that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social responsibility to a member of the association which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter despatched to a member, however, a studying of the topic letter-reply addressed to respondent doesn’t present any rationalization concerning the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as towards the claim of respondent’s client. In using phrases similar to «lousy», «inutile», «carabao English», «stupidity», and «satan», the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and popularity of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. The words as written had only the impact of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as legal officer within the Department of Environment and công ty xây dựng sông cầu Natural Resources for therefore many years till his retirement and afterwards as consultant of the same agency and also a notary public. Needless so that you can cite specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the same is irrelevant to the present 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 preference in the appliance of the penalties provided for in B.P. Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; and, below the overall rule laid down in Article 354, «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if or not it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown». The Court held that since the letter shouldn’t be a privileged communication, «malice is presumed» beneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code supplies «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown», except in the next instances: «(1) a non-public communication made by any particular person to another in the efficiency of any legal, ethical, or social obligation; and (2) a good and true report, made in good religion, with none comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which aren’t of confidential nature, or of any assertion, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of every other act carried out by public officers within the train of their functions».
This content was generated by Công ty xây dựng.
The Court stated that as a way to show that a statement falls within the purview of a certified privileged communication below Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the following requisites must concur: (1) the one that made the communication had a authorized, moral, or social obligation to make the communication, or a minimum of, had an interest to guard, which curiosity may either be his own 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 responsibility in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the safety sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice. May we remind you that any try in your part to proceed harassing the person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious way than what is necessary in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and displaying malicious intent on petitioner’s part.
He never knew respondent previous to the demand letter despatched by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a personal communication made in the performance of his «moral and social duty as the lawyer-in-reality of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate» the place Mrs. Quingco is a acknowledged 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 words used within the letter dated August 18, 1995 despatched by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable as the topic letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s topic letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all involved. On that same day, Atty. Not personally knowing who the sender was, Atty.