MVRS Publication vs.
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines
G.R. No. 135306
January 28, 2003
Facts:
Respondent Islamic Da’wah filed a claim for damages against Petitioner MVRS Publication, Inc.
due to an article published by the petitioner which constitute a libelous statement which is insulting or
damaging to the Muslims, stating that the pig was the God of the Muslims. Respondent Islamic Da’wah
alleged that the articles were published out of sheer ignorance as well as with the intent to hurt the
feelings, cast insult and disparage the Muslim and Islam, as a religion in this country, in violation of the
law, public policy, good morals, and human relations. On the other hand, Petitioner MVRS contended that
the article did not mention Respondents Islamic Da’wah as the object of the article and therefore not
entitled for damages. Likewise, they contended that the said article was merely an expression of belief or
opinion and was published without malice nor intention to cause damage, prejudice or injury to Muslims.
Issue:
W/N the said article published by Petitioner MVRS constitutes as an insult to the Muslim
Community.
Ruling:
NO. The SC granted the petition filed by Petitioner MVRS.
Defamation means the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through false
and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputations or to diminish the esteem, respect,
good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff. It is
the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring
him into disrepute. Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which
others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiffs.
It must be stressed that the words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander
per se and mere words of general abuse however, opprobrious, ill-natured or vexatious, whether written
or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special
damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.
Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified
or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of
a class, no member of such class has a right of action without impairing the equally demanding right of
free speech and expression, as well as of the press, under the Bill of Rights.
In the present case, there was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar
Article. Since the persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, Respondents Islamic Da ‘wah has
no cause of action, hence, they cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged. Respondents must have a
cause of action in common with the class to which they belong to in order for the case to prosper.
