The following FB posts are among the four counts of online libel that Atharra
Primeland Development Corp. is charging Emmanuel “Willy” Bongcac Ramasola
with.
Atharra has sought P20-million damages for the alleged libelous posts of Ramasola.
If proven guilty by the court, Ramasola could also face years of jail time.
Court records showed that social media posts made by Ramasola accused Atharra’s
condo project of being a scam.
On May 19, 2022, at 9:01 P.M., Ramasola published a post that allegedly offended
the reputation of the condo developer.
In his post, Willy wrote: “It’s a pity for condo buyers. They were really deceived.
Similar to those deceived by the forex scam. Only five workers are (working) in the
project site. How can this be finished. Scam is real.”
The following day, at 11:47 A.M., Willy Ramasola posted another article on his social
media account.
In this article, he claimed that the condo project was unable to pay the rent for an
adjacent property used as an office and yard for gravel extraction.
Ramasola also alleged that the contractor had left due to not being paid for six
months and that an investor partner had withdrawn their investment.
Willy’s posts have raised concerns among condo buyers who have already made
down payments and are continuing to make monthly payments, according to court
documents submitted as part of the complaint.
Online libel is defined as “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” (Section 4 (c) (4),
Republic Act No. 10175).
In Lopez vs. People (G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011), a libel is defined 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.”
For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a) it must be
defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity and d) the victim
must be identifiable.
According to the complaint filed at the City Prosecutor’s Office, Willy Ramasola’s
Facebook posts are allegedly defamatory because they are meant to discredit
Atharra to its clients or customers.
The words used can easily incite readers to raise doubts about Atharra’s capability to
fulfill its contractual obligations, the complaint said.
In Lopez vs. People (ibid.), it was stated that an allegation is considered defamatory
if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to blacken
the memory of one who is dead.
In the libel case against Willy Ramasola, the court is examining his Facebook posts
to determine if they meet the criteria for libel.
In Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (161 SCRA 427), it was discussed that
words calculated to induce suspicion can be more effective in destroying reputation
than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored
vehicle for slander.
The test for libelous meaning is not the analysis of a sentence into component
phrases with the meticulous care of a grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed
by the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader, the complaint said. In other
words, courts will understand language in whatever form it is used as all mankind
understands it.
In this case, Willy’s Facebook posts are public and can easily be accessed by
anyone who searches for his name on the social media platform. This satisfies the
element of publicity required for a charge of libel, the complainant said. (TO BE
CONCLUDED)