On the rewarding facet is the shopper that has been underserved by other brokers and someway involves you for help. The Court said that while it would 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 sent to a member, nonetheless, a studying of the topic 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 towards the claim of respondent’s consumer. In using words resembling «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 words as written had solely the impact of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as authorized officer within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for thus a few years until his retirement and afterwards as consultant of the same agency and in addition a notary public. Needless for you to cite specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the same is irrelevant to the present case. This công ty xây dựng!
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 application of the penalties offered for in B.P. Any of the imputations lined by Article 353 is defamatory; and, underneath the general rule laid down in Article 354, «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». The Court held that because the letter will not be a privileged communication, «malice is presumed» beneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code gives «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown», besides in the next instances: «(1) a non-public communication made by any particular person to another within the performance of any legal, moral, or social responsibility; and (2) a good and true report, made in good religion, with none comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or different official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any assertion, report, or speech delivered in stated proceedings, or of every other act carried out by public officers in the exercise of their functions». version!
The Court acknowledged that with a purpose to show that a statement falls inside the purview of a professional privileged communication underneath Article 354, xây dựng nhà trọn gói No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the one that made the communication had a authorized, ethical, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an curiosity to guard, which interest could 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 ability to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good religion 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 manner than what is critical in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good religion and showing malicious intent on petitioner’s part. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He never knew respondent previous to the demand letter sent 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 performance of his «moral and social duty as the legal professional-in-fact of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate» where Mrs. Quingco is a acknowledged tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, thus in the nature of a privileged communication and never libelous. Gauging from the above-mentioned tests, the phrases used within the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The sufferer of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. On that same day, Atty. Not personally knowing who the sender was, Atty.