Atienza and Councilors Emelita Gabito, Delfin Santillan, Riclien Asentista, Randolph Rivera, Isaias Bacolod, Reynaldo Monsanto, Bernabe Compra Sr. and Owen Daruca filed a joint counter-affidavit yesterday.
The case stemmed from statements that they made on the complaint they filed against Mancio before the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged unliquidated cash advances amounting to P7.3 million, something that Mancio earlier claimed have already been liquidated.
The town officials contended that the filing of the complaint was an exercise of their "legal, moral, and social duty."
"Any citizen for that matter has the 'legal, moral and social duty' to complain to the proper government agency, like the Office of the Ombudsman, any act of irregularity that tends to degrade the integrity of public office. The statements, therefore, in the complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman were all 'privileged communications,' which should not hold the respondents liable for libel," they said.
Citing jurisprudence, they said their statements on the complaint falls under the purview of qualifiedly privileged communication because it contained the required requisites such as the issuing party having the legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication or, at least, having interest to protect.
Other requisites include the communication being addressed to an officer or a board or superior who has interest or duty on the matter and who has the power to furnish the protection being sought, and that the statements were made in good faith and without malice.
The town officials are also asking the prosecutors to disregard a separate libel complaint that Mancio filed against Gabito, Monsanto and Atienza, whom the mayor alleged to have invited the media specifically to be interviewed relative to the complaint at the Ombudsman.
The town officials say the separate case for libel against the three councilors is "repetitious and forum-shopping".
Gabito has already filed her counter-affidavit on the separate libel case and sought refuge with the doctrine of fair comment, which the Supreme Court said presupposes that the publication of an alleged malicious remark is based on established facts.
"The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable," the high tribunal said.
She also cited another ruling of the Supreme Court, which said that when an imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, the same is not necessarily actionable.
Gabito said there was no malice on her part when she issued the statement relative to the complaint with the Ombudsman because it was made in line with her being a member of the municipal council and based on report by the Commission on Audit.
"I do not bear personal ill-will or spite. I answered questions during the interview in response to my duty as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Madridejos, Cebu to protect the public funds of our municipality," Gabito said. - Joeberth M. Ocao/LPM