THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260503. September 28, 2022.]
FELICIDAD S. GARCIA and LOLINA N. BAJIN, petitioner, vs. COL. JOCELYN P. TURLA, MC, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 28, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 260503 [FormerlyUDK17555] (Felicidad S. Garcia and Lolina N. Bajin vs. Col. Jocelyn P. Turla, MC). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 lodged by Felicidad S. Garcia and Lolina N. Bajin (petitioners), impugning the Decision2 dated 26 November 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 112685, which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated 20 April 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 165, in Civil Case No. 10-1402-MK. The RTC found petitioners liable for damages in connection with their defamatory acts against Col. Jocelyn P. Turla, MC (respondent).
After a judicious scrutiny of the case, the Court discerns no palpable justification to disturb the findings of the CA.
At the outset, the Court notes that the Petition is procedurally infirm in that petitioners' Verification was improperly executed, given that they merely stated therein that their averments in the Petition were based on their knowledge and belief, contrary to the requirement under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended. 4 Therewithal, it bears to stress that the cardinal rule adhered to in this jurisdiction is that the factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect. 5 While the rule admits of certain exceptions, none of these are attendant in the case at bench.
All the same, the Court sustains the CA and the RTC's award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees in favor of respondent.
Defamation pertains to the offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It is "that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in the [offended party] or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about [him or her]." 6
Appositely, Articles 2217 and 2219, par. (7) of the New Civil Code provide —
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may he recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.
xxx xxx xxx
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
The afore-cited provisions allow the offended party to recover moral damages from another whose libel, slander or any other form of defamation is the proximate cause of his or her physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. 7
Undoubtedly, the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrates respondent's entitlement to moral damages. Petitioners' imputation during the pre-annual general inspection (AGI) conference that the charge invoice was "used in a ghost delivery" 8 and represented "a corrupt act committed by [respondent]" 9 greatly tarnished her reputation, exposing her to discredit and contempt. It eventually led to her interrogation by the Command Inspector (CI), 10 removal from Camp Navarro General Hospital (CNGH), placement on floating status, relegation to mere staff duty, and even hospitalization for serious health concerns. 11 On this score, the Court ingeminates the CA's ratiocination, thus —
In this case, We find that the defendants-appellants' acts of presenting the invoice to Gepte during the pre-AGI dialogue which was a public event for the hospital's personnel and misrepresenting to him that a fund was released for the invoice but no delivery was made were defamatory as they have clearly ascribed to Col. Turla, as the commanding officer of the hospital, the commission of a crime which tended to dishonor her. By reason of their malicious acts, Col. Turla was made to explain about the invoice before the WESMINCOM and, although the latter did not find anything irregular in the invoice, she was eventually relieved from her position as commanding officer. 12
Petitioner Garcia's statement "Mabuti may darating na AGI, magsasalita na ako tungkol sa pamamalakad ni Col. Turla, para masira na talaga siya," as testified to by witness Lorna T. Magallanes also amply proves petitioners' malicious intent to besmirch respondent's reputation. 13 Well-ensconced is the rule that there is "a presumption of malice in the case of every defamatory imputation, where there is no showing of a good intention or justifiable motive for making such imputation." 14
Corollary thereto, the timing of petitioners' presentment of the charge invoice reveals their desire to discredit respondent in front of the public. Notably, despite respondent's conduct of a preparatory meeting, petitioners made no attempt to discuss or verify with her the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the charge invoice. 15 Considering the gravity of their accusation against her, they, at the very least, should have exerted earnest efforts to clarify and resolve their issues internally, instead of immediately imputing corruption upon her at the pre-AGI conference.
Apropos petitioners' averment that "ordering [them] to pay for the alleged damages suffered by [respondent] can be considered as condoning criminality and tolerating the wrongdoings of the officers in command," 16 it is noteworthy that the investigation conducted by the CI, LTC Eric Gepte yielded no findings of criminal or administrative liability against respondent. 17 Petitioners themselves did not press any charges against respondent for her purported wrongdoing but instead opted to humiliate her in front of an audience.
Patently, the foregoing circumstances warrant the award of P300,000.00 as moral damages in favor of respondent. In the same breath, the Court affirms the award of P150,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus costs of suit. Exemplary or corrective damages, in addition to moral damages, are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. 18 Lastly, in conformity with Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 19 the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be computed on the total monetary award until the full satisfaction of the obligation.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 26 November 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 112685 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioners Felicidad S. Garcia and Lolina N. Bajin are ordered to pay respondent Col. Jocelyn P. Turla, MC jointly and severally the amounts of P300,000.00 as moral damages, P150,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus costs of suit. In fealty to prevailing jurisprudence, all monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction thereof.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-34.
2.Id. at 36-63. Penned by Associate Justice Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale, concurring.
3.Id. at 67-86. Penned by Judge Acerey C. Pacheco.
4.Section 4.Verification. —
xxx xxx xxx
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on "information and belief" or upon "knowledge, information, and belief" or lacks a proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
5. See Manila Electric Company (Meralco) vs. AAA Cryogenics Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 207429, 18 November 2020.
6. See Yuchengco vs. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., 620 Phil. 697, 716 (2009).
7. See Lorenzo vs. Eustaquio, G.R. No. 209435, 10 August 2022.
8.Rollo, p. 42.
9.Id. at 37.
10.Id. at 18.
11.Id. at 19 and 49-52.
12.Id. at 60-61.
13.Id. at 59.
14. See Yuchengco vs. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., G.R. No. 184315, 25 November 2009, 605 SCRA 684, 710.
15.Rollo, p. 84.
16.Id. at 26.
17.Id. at 19.
18. See Guy vs. Tulfo, 851 Phil. 748, 770 (2019).
19. 716 Phil. 267-283 (2013).