BY EVANGELINE DE VERA

JOURNALISTS who filed a P12.5 million damage suit in December 2006 against Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo won Round 2 after the Court of Appeals denied Arroyo’s petition to stop, for lack of merit, the Makati RTC from admitting the amended complaint after complainants failed to pay the correct docket fees.

The CA’s Seventh Division lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier issued and remanded the case to the Makati RTC, which was ordered to "conduct further proceedings with dispatch."

Harry Roque, counsel for over 40 media practitioners who joined the class suit, said: "This is the beginning of the end of impunity. Those who will use libel as a tool to infringe on freedom of the press, beware. Democracy has fought back and democracy won."

Among the complainants are Malaya’s Ellen Tordesillas, Minnie Advincula, Regina Bengco, JP Lopez and columnist Lito Banayo; Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivares, Marites Vitug, Glenda Gloria, Ricky Carandang, Romulo Mariñas, Gina Capili-Inciong, Gerry Baldo, Sherwin Olaes, Lito Tugadi, Jing Santos, Rustico Otico, Maria Concepcion Cruz, Miriam Grace Go, Ma. Romina Gonzalez;

Ma. Cristina Rodriguez, Yvonne Chua, Alcuin Papa, Ramon Tulfo, Erwin Tulfo, William Esposo, Jose Pavia, Rowena Paraan, Sweet May Cawicaan, Jofelle Tesorio, Jose Bimbo Santos, Rachel Khan, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism Inc., Francisco Tatad, Conrado de Quiros, Nixon Cua, and Vergel Santos.

The group sought P12.5 million in damages before the trial court in response to the flurry of libel cases that the First Gentleman had filed since 2003 — 10 against 45 members of the press, a number unprecedented in Philippine history.

If the group wins the case, the damages will be placed in a trust fund for the welfare of journalists and their families.

In the 23-page decision penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, the CA said it found no grave abuse of discretion in the ruling of respondent Judge Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles of the Makati RTC branch 143 in admitting the amendments in the complaint, such as the inclusion of Redmond Batario, Luis Teodoro, Lourdes Estella Simbulan and Malaya editor-in-chief Joy delos Reyes as additional plaintiffs in the damage suit.

The amended complaint further sought the deletion of the word "each" in paragraphs 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the complaint to conform to the alleged intention of private respondents to claim damages for the press as a whole and as a unified institution.

The word "each" was likewise deleted from the prayer in the complaint and replaced with "aggregate."

The CA junked Arroyo’s argument that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because of the plaintiff’s non-payment of docket fees.

Allegedly, the amount of damages claimed by the journalists totaled P487.5 million, making docket fees at more than P9 million. However, the group paid only P200,000.

But the appellate court said there was no clear intent on the part of the journalists to evade the payment of the correct docket fees.

"There was no omission of the amounts of damages in the prayer in the original complaint and private respondents (journalists) paid the docket fees based on the assessment by the Clerk of Court… (since) private respondents explicitly stated in the complaint that they filed the case ‘on their own behalf and acting as class suit representatives of fellow members of the Philippine press,’" the decision, promulgated September 22, read.

The CA said that the trial court subjected the case to preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses precisely so that the parties will be afforded the opportunity to be heard on their respective positions, while the matter of whether the case is a class suit is yet to be tackled.

It further cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Heirs of Bertudo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor which stated that non-payment of the proper docket fees at the time of filing does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive period.

According to damage complaint, President Arroyo’s husband is liable for damages under the Civil Code for the anxiety, loss of income and other inconveniences that his libel suits allegedly caused. The plaintiffs also argued that the suits have a chilling effect on press freedom.

Roque also said the case is also a pre-requisite for the filing of a suit before the UN Commission on Human Rights, which requires that domestic remedies must be exhausted before cases could be filed before the international body.

"The suit does not dispute the right of Mr. Arroyo to file libel charges against anyone he believes has wronged him through a libelous imputation. Journalists are also aware that libel suits are part of the media territory. But the sheer number of suits he has filed (10 against 45 respondents) suggests that these are primarily intended to intimidate the press and silence criticism," the complainants said in a pooled editorial posted on the CMFR web log.

The group added that while Arroyo claims he has no such intention and describes himself as a private citizen, there is an Office of the First Gentleman maintained by public funds, and he wields influence and power as the President’s spouse.

Also, they noted libel is a criminal offense in the Philippines and a journalist can be arrested for libel and sentenced to prison and made to pay damages that can run into the millions.