On the rewarding facet is the shopper that has been underserved by other brokers and somehow involves you for help. The Court said that whereas it might 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 present any explanation regarding the standing of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as towards the claim of respondent’s shopper. In using words similar to «lousy», «inutile», «carabao English», «stupidity», and «satan», the letter, as it was written, casts aspersion on the character, cty xây dựng integrity and popularity of respondent as a lawyer which uncovered him to ridicule. The phrases as written had solely the effect of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as legal officer within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for so a few years until his retirement and afterwards as marketing consultant of the identical agency and also a notary public. Needless for you to cite particular provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the identical is irrelevant to the current 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 applying of the penalties provided for in B.P. Any of the imputations coated by Article 353 is defamatory; and, beneath the overall rule laid down in Article 354, «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». The Court held that for the reason that letter shouldn’t 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 if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown», besides in the next cases: «(1) a private communication made by any individual to a different in the efficiency of any authorized, moral, or social duty; and (2) a good and true report, made in good religion, without any 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 said proceedings, or of every other act carried out by public officers in the exercise of their functions». version!
The Court said that with a purpose to prove that an announcement falls inside the purview of a professional privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the next requisites should concur: (1) the one that made the communication had a authorized, ethical, or social responsibility to make the communication, or a minimum of, had an curiosity to protect, which curiosity could both 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 curiosity or responsibility within the matter, and who has the ability to furnish the safety 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 way 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. 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 assistance thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a non-public communication made within the performance of his «moral and social obligation as the lawyer-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 nature of a privileged communication and not libelous. Gauging from the above-talked about checks, the words used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent 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 subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all involved. On that same day, Atty. Not personally understanding who the sender was, Atty.