The Supreme Court has remanded for further trial court proceedings the libel case filed against the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) by a medical practitioner whom the paper, in two previously published articles, had alleged of giving an “erroneous diagnosis,” allegedly leading to the death of PDI’s photo correspondent.

In a nine-page decision penned by Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, the Court’s First Division remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 5, for it to hear and resolve PDI’s affirmative defenses raised by the PDI in its Answer. The trial court had previously denied PDI’s motion for a Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defense Raised in the Answer on the ground that the documentary evidence provided by the complainant, taken with the allegations of the complaint, showed sufficient cause of action to proceed with the case.  PDI had questioned the complaint’s sufficiency in stating a cause of action, alleging among others, that it failed to specify the participation of each defendant, which is a requirement in libel cases. 

Reversing the October 22, 2003 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing PDI’s petition for certiorari and prohibition over the trial court’s denial of PDI’s motion, the High Court held that the trial court has to resolve the question of whether the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action, taking into account “only the material allegations in the complaint,” excluding any “extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters aliunde.”

“When a defendant seeks the dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss, the sufficiency of the motion should be tested on the strength of the allegations of facts contained in the complaint and on no other basis… otherwise, it would be a procedural error and a denial of due process… This procedure is designed to prevent a tedious, if not traumatic, trial in case the complaint falls short of sufficiently alleging a cause of action,” the Court said. 

Dr. Luz Babaran filed a complaint for damages against PDI after the latter had published the August 1, 2000 article “After Bong, who’s next?,” narrating the death of Expedito “Bong” Caldez, a PDI photo correspondent in Cagayan, and quoting the deceased’s family’s lament that Caldez’s death was due to her alleged erroneous diagnosis. Babaran also sought to make PDI liable for its September 29, 2000 follow-up article DOH orders probe of fotog’s death.  (GR No. 160604, PDI v. Judge Alameda, March 28, 2008)