Manila Court junks Robin Padilla's complaint versus GMA Network | GMANetwork.com - Corporate - Articles

Padilla filed a complaint after GMA News reporter Emil Sumangil named Padilla in the GMA News TV newscast Balitanghali as the owner of a house where P1 billion worth of liquid shabu was seized. The report was later posted on GMA News Online.

Manila Court junks Robin Padilla's complaint versus GMA Network

January 10 2017

Assisting Judge Ihmie Michiko C. Gacad-Presto of the 5th Branch of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila dismissed a civil case for damages filed by actor Robin Padilla against broadcast company GMA Network, Inc., GMA President and COO Gilberto Duavit Jr., GMA News Online editor in chief Jaemark Tordecilla, and GMA News reporter Emil Sumangil for insufficiency of evidence.

Padilla filed a complaint against the defendants after Sumangil named Padilla in the GMA News TV newscast Balitanghali as the owner of a house where P1 billion worth of liquid shabu was seized. The report was later posted on GMA News Online.

It was claimed by Padilla that the mention of his name in the news reports was done with malice, and destroyed his reputation and integrity as a public figure.

In her Decision dated December 7, 2016, Judge Gacad-Presto declared that the news report was not defamatory and that the actual damage to the plaintiff was not sufficiently proven.  

The court ruled that the statement cannot be considered defamatory considering that there is lack of evidence supporting Padilla’s claim that the reports were intended to mislead the readers and/or viewers and that they were delivered to the public to maliciously discredit or injure him.

With regard to the claim for damages, the court said that it cannot solely rely on speculations and probability in upholding that Padilla’s public image was, in fact, damaged and/or injured. It further stated that in order to warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages, the complainant must prove that the damage sustained “is the natural and probable consequence of the negligent act” and that he or she must “adequately prove the amount of such damage.”

Thus the complaint was dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis

advertisement

Elsewhere on GMA

advertisement