CA upholds dismissal of libel case vs. Tulfo
The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld an earlier decision dismissing the libel case against broadcast journalist and Senator-elect Erwin Tulfo, ruling that private complainants — including GMA Network executives Felipe Gozon and Gilberto Duavit Jr. — had no legal standing to seek reconsideration without the consent of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
In a resolution dated 28 May 2025, penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos Jr., the CA said the complainants’ failure to secure prior OSG approval rendered their motion for reconsideration procedurally defective.
The court also ruled that their subsequent petition for certiorari was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period, making the dismissal final.
Citing the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Austria v. AAA, the appellate court stressed that private complainants in criminal cases cannot file appeals or challenge rulings without the OSG’s conformity. While the GMA executives could have sought the OSG’s approval within the allowed period, they failed to do so.
The CA further affirmed that the granting of Tulfo’s demurrer to evidence was equivalent to an acquittal. Any further prosecution would thus violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, the court said, adding that none of the exceptions — such as suppression of evidence or witness harassment — were applicable.
Additionally, the court agreed with the lower court’s finding that the allegedly libelous statements were directed only at GMA Network as a corporation, not its individual officers. Under Philippine law, corporate executives cannot claim defamation unless they are directly and personally targeted.
The libel complaint stemmed from statements made by Tulfo and co-accused Jing Castañeda-Jumilla on ABS-CBN programs, which GMA executives alleged were defamatory. However, the Regional Trial Court had previously dismissed the case for lack of evidence.
With the denial of motions for reconsideration, the case is now deemed closed, shielding Tulfo and his co-accused from further legal action on the same matter.
