On the rewarding facet is the client that has been underserved by different brokers and one way or the other comes to you for help. The Court said that while it would seem that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social duty 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, nevertheless, a reading of the topic letter-reply addressed to respondent does not present any explanation regarding the standing of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as in opposition to the claim of respondent’s client. In using phrases corresponding to «lousy», «inutile», «carabao English», «stupidity», and «satan», the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and repute of respondent as a lawyer which uncovered him to ridicule. The words as written had only the effect 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 so a few years till his retirement and afterwards as marketing consultant of the identical company and in addition a notary public. Needless for you to cite particular 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 desire in the application of the penalties supplied for in B.P. Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory; and, beneath the final 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 for the reason that 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 provides «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 circumstances: «(1) a private communication made by any person to a different within the efficiency of any authorized, ethical, or social responsibility; and (2) a fair and true report, made in good faith, with none feedback 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 another act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions». version!
The Court said that in an effort to prove that a statement falls throughout the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal, ethical, or social responsibility to make the communication, or a minimum of, had an interest to guard, which curiosity might 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 duty in the matter, and who has the facility to furnish the safety sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good religion and with out malice. May we remind you that any attempt on your part to proceed harassing the particular person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious method than what is critical in answering a demand công ty thiết kế xây dựng letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and showing malicious intent on petitioner’s part. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He never knew respondent prior 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 private communication made within the efficiency of his «moral and social duty because the legal professional-in-reality 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 not libelous. Gauging from the above-mentioned assessments, the phrases used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The sufferer 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 figuring out who the sender was, Atty.