On

ART.354

Kinds of privileged communication:
1. Absolutely privileged – not actionable even if the actor has
   acted in bad faith;
2. Qualifiedly privileged – those which, although containing
   defamatory imputations, are not actionable unless made with
   malice or bad faith.

General Rule: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive
for making it is shown.

Exceptions:
1. private communication in performance of legal, moral or
   social duty
2. Requisites:
   a. That the person who made the communication had a legal,
      moral or social duty to make the communication or at
      least he had an interest to be upheld;
   b. That the communication is addressed to an officer or a
      board, or superior, having some interest or duty on the
      matter; and
   c. That the statements in the communication are made in good
      faith without malice in fact.
3. fair and true report of official proceedings, made in good
   faith, without any comments and remarks
4. Requisites:
   a. That the publication of a report of an official
      proceeding is a fair and true report of a judicial,
      legislative, or other official proceedings which are not
      of confidential nature, or of a statement, report, or
      speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
      act performed by a public officer in the exercise of his
      functions;
   b. That it is made in good faith; and
   c. That it is made without any comments or remarks

Prosecution must prove malice in fact to convict the accused in
case of qualified privileged communication

The privilege simply does away with presumption of malice

Absolute Privileged Communication: not actionable even if done
in bad faith – statements made by members of Congress in
discharge of functions, Judicial Proceedings when pertinent
and relevant to subject of inquiry

Qualified privilege is lost by proof of malice

Applying to wrong person due to honest mistake does not take
case out of the privilege

Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith

Defense of privileged communication in paragraph 1: will be
rejected if it is shown that accused acted with malice in fact
and there is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to
be true(for example, no personal investigation made;
probable cause in belief is sufficient)

Malice in fact: rivalry or ill-ffeling existing at date
of publication, intention to injure the reputation of
offended party, motivated by hate and revenge

In proceedings, communication/ pleadings/others must be
pertinent and material to subject matter to be covered by
privilege

Only matters which are not confidential in nature may be
published

Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of
public officers which are related to the discharge of their
official duties will not constitute libel if defendant proves
the truth of imputation; any attack upon private character on
matters not related to discharge of official duties may be
libelous

Conduct related to discharge of duties of public officers are
matters of public interest

Mental, moral and physical fitness of candidates for public
office may be object of criticism; criticism – does not follow
a public man into his private life and domestic concerns

Statements made in self defense or in mutual controversy are
often privileged; person libeled is justified to hit back with
another libel

However, retaliation and vindictiveness cannot be basis of
self-defense in defamation; self-defense must be on matters
related to imputations made on person invoking defense

He who published what is true, and in good faith and for
justifiable ends, incurs no responsibility