Annulment in the Philippines: Questions and Answers (Part 2)

One of the more popular posts in this Forum is Annulment, Divorce and Legal Separation in the Philippines: Questions and Answers. It’s time we collate other common issues relating to this topic. When we speak of the “annulment process”, we’re using it in a general sense to include both a petition for annulment and a petition for declaration of nullity (the difference between the two was already discussed in Part I).

Continue reading

Criminal Cases and Insolvency

I often come across debtors dropping the hint of filing, or actually filing, a case for insolvency or bankruptcy just to bring home the (alleged) point that they have nothing more to cough out. It is true that once a petition for insolvency is granted, the debtor-insolvent is discharged from all his existing debts. The decision to file for insolvency, however, should not be taken lightly. Here are a few reasons why:

Continue reading

Credit Cards and Unfair Collection Practices in the Philippines

There are a number of good reasons in favor of having and using a credit card. Still, we all know the possible adverse results in the unchecked use of “plastics” or credit cards, such as this one: “THERE’S a credit-card horror story that’s become some sort of an urban legend: A television personality, after losing his job in a top network, resorts to using his plastic money. By the time he finds employment in the rival network, he has wracked up P58,000 in credit card bills. But he figures he’s not yet ready to pay in full, so he pays just the minimum amount due. Yet after five years, he is shocked to realize that his credit card debt had ballooned more than 10 times to P700,000.”

Continue reading

Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part V)

We previously discussed that the two complaints for libel were dismissed as against RP Nuclei Solutions and Abe Olandres (Part IV). However, the cases were filed in court as against the two other individual respondents (Part III), who were the supposed authors of the allegedly libelous comments (Part II – basic facts).

RP Nuclei Solutions, represented by Abe, filed a counter-charge for perjury (under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code), which was consolidated with the two libel complaints (this simply means that the three complaints were joined and decided by the same Investigating Prosecutor).

According to RP Nuclei Solutions, it is the owner of plogHost (ploghost.com), a web hosting service aimed at providing affordable and efficient ways to deliver web hosting services to the local market. RP Nuclei Solutions or plogHost claims that as such web host, it leases its servers to registered owners of websites or web logs (blogs), among others, and that a web host is entirely different from the registered owner of a website or blog.

The charge for perjury is based on the allegation that RP Nuclei Solutions is liable for libel on the ground that greedyolddumbass.com is œowned and operated by the Respondent RP NUCLEI SOLUTIONS CORP. According to RP Nuclei Solutions, it is not the owner and operator of greedyolddumbass.com, contrary to the allegation of the complainant in the libel complaints.

The counter-charge of perjury, however, was also dismissed. Continue reading

Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part IV)

This is the fourth of a six-part series discussing two complaints for internet libel. As stated in Part I (Introduction), this part will focus on the resolution in favor of Abe Olandres and the RP Nuclei Solutions, Inc.

As noted in Part II (basic facts of the complaints), RP Nuclei Solutions, Inc. was impleaded as a co-respondent because it is allegedly the “owner” of the internet forum greedyolddumbass.com. The complainant subsequently acknowledged that RP Nuclei Solutions, as a juridical entity, may not properly be charged with libel. The complainant, however, impleaded Abe Olandres in place of RP Nuclei Solutions.

The Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaints as against RP Nuclei Solutions and Abe. Continue reading

Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part III)

In this part of this six-part series, we will discuss the defenses raised by the main respondent in one of the two libel complaints filed before the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office. You may also read Parts I, II, IV, V, and VI.

In his Counter-Affidavit, the main respondent claims that the complaint is merely a part of a sinister design to harass former employees who are trying to make their living away from the said company. Said respondent also claims that only members have exclusive access to greedyolddumbass.com. In the said internet forum, being exclusive, every member is open and free to express his thoughts in whatever topic. The allegedly libelous statements or comments, on the other hand, are merely expressions of outbursts common among Filipinos and that they are figures of speech.

Interestingly, the respondent also claimed that there is yet no law that considers that posting of internet chat messages through internet forum a publication to constitute the crime libel. Continue reading

Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part II)

As noted in Part I of this series, the basic facts of the complaints are discussed here, in Part II.

There were actually two complaints for libel – one for each of the two main respondents – before the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office. The complaints are based on Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

The complaints stemmed from certain comments made by two individuals in the internet forum greedyolddumbass.com. According to the complainant, the messages posted are libelous because they tend to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt against the complainant, particularly in the following manner: (a) the message inculcate in the minds of the readers that the complainant mismanaged the company he is handling, which is highly prejudicial to the interest of the company; (b) one of the messages imputed that the complainant is the source of all “kasamaang nangyayari even from the original company” and that “siya ang reason why we left the company”, which, in effect, tries to destroy the good image and reputation of the company; (c) one of the messages even implicated the complainant’s family for being “WALANG KWENTA”; and (d) the use of the words “TARANTADO” and “GAGO” against the complainant are malicious imputations.

RP Nuclei Solutions, Inc. was impleaded as a co-respondent because it is allegedly the “owner” of the internet forum greedyolddumbass.com. The complainant subsequently acknowledged that RP Nuclei Solutions, as a juridical entity, may not properly be charged with libel. The complainant, however, impleaded Abe Olandres in place of RP Nuclei Solutions.

(This is the second of six parts. Click to read Parts I, III, IV, V or VI)

Anatomy of an Internet Libel Case (Part I)

The recent incoming link (at my other site) from Abe’s site alerted me to his post on surviving a libel suit. Considering that the cases – there were two consolidated libel cases – had been dismissed as against Abe, and considering that there’s no motion for reconsideration/appeal filed by any of the parties involved (none that I know of), perhaps we could discuss these cases for reporting and academic purposes.

Continue reading