Dear PAO,
I am writing on behalf of my relative, who is being attacked online by her former employees. These people were terminated for violating company rules on social media use. Now they are using Facebook to bash my relative publicly. They post memes and indirect comments aimed at my relative and the company. They compare their new workplaces, saying things like the culture is better and the boss has more integrity. They use my relative’s first name in comments, then reply using a last name to make it sound like a celebrity name — like “Anne” then “Curtis-Smith.” The latest comment even insulted my relative’s physical appearance, calling her “mukhang mangga.” Other ex-employees are now joining in, too. The posts are public, and the attacks are getting more personal every day. Is this cyberlibel or cyberbullying under Philippine law? Can my relative file a complaint? What evidence should she be collecting right now?
Tommy R.
Dear Tommy R.,
Cyberlibel is a crime defined and penalized by Republic Act (RA) 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to the Revised Penal Code. Specifically, Section 4 (c)(4) thereof defines cyberlibel as follows:
“Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: x x x
“(c) Content-related Offenses: x x x
“(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”
In the case of Disini v. Secretary of Justice (GR 203335, Feb. 14, 2014, penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad), the Supreme Court explained that online libel invokes the same elements with that of traditional libel and establishes the computer system as another means of publication. The high court added that the crime of Libel has the following elements: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.
In your relative’s case, publication may be established through proof of posts on a social media platform. However, the element of a discreditable act or condition must be determined based on the content of actual posts. For example, an allegation of better culture in their current company may not qualify as defamatory, while allusion of having a pointed face may be considered as defamatory given that it was made to shame a person.
Although your relative was not directly named in the posts, the perpetrators may still be liable for cyberlibel if it can be established that she was indeed the person alluded to in the posts. For this purpose, the person defamed need not be expressly named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did understand that he [or she] was the person referred to. (Lastimosa v. People, GR 233577, Dec. 5, 2022, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa).
As to the presence of malice, Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code expressly states that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
