Kunkle v. Cablenews American

G.R. No.
L-16488 February 8, 1922
FREDERICK A. KUNKLE, plaintiff-appellant,
vs. THE CABLENEWS-AMERICAN and NORBERT LYONS, defendants-appellees.
G. E. Campbell for appellant.
Lawrence & Ross and Ewald E. Selph for appellees.
Facts:
Kunkle was in the service of the city of Manila as policeman; and while acting as such in the early hours
of the morning of he picked up a drunken female on the streets who commonly went by the name of
Mrs. Fuller (alias Mrs. Ward). The woman resisted arrest, with insults to the officer, and escaped into her
house. From there she called up by telephone the editorial office of the Cablenews-American, where the
defendant Norbert Lyons was then on duty as editor, and poured into his ear a story of her grievances in
such a way as enlisted his editorial sympathies.
The next morning there appeared in the columns of the Cablenews-American under the heading "Hun
Cop Attacks American Woman".
The article stated that Mrs. Ward was pounced upon by the policeman who punched her face, tearing
her mouth and knocking her senseless. The man had been waiting in the doorway for her. He informed
her that he was punishing her for having reported him to the authorities.
The article began to show signs of deflation, but the additional information was given to the public that
the arrest of Mrs. Ward had been effected by a policeman of the Meisic precinct, and that, instead of
being a German, he was born in Minnesota. It was also stated that the officer in question had filed 2
charges against the woman, namely, one for being drunk and another for resisting arrest.
In neither of these items, nor in any subsequent publication was any mention made of the name of the
plaintiff as the policeman supposedly guilty of the misbehavior.
Kunkle filed a case and said that the article complained of as libelous referred to him. The only witness
for the defense was Norbert Lyons who told how he received the information on which the item
complained of was based.
Note: The case didn’t indicate the rulings of the RTC and CA
Issue: Whether or not the article is libelous in nature.
Ruling: No. The reason is that there is nothing in the publication from which a reader of the alleged libel
could connect the imputations of said libel with the personality of the plaintiff, and no third person was
introduced as a witness for the plaintiff to testify that he had recognized, or could have recognized, the
plaintiff as the person referred to in the publication. In this connection it must be remembered that the
female informant assumed a fictitious name in communicating with the defendant Lyons, and the only
descriptive word used by her about the plaintiff was that he was a German, which was false.
No special pecuniary damage is alleged or proved, as that the plaintiff by reason of the publication of
this defamatory matter had lost his position as a policeman in the employment of the city; nor is it
shown that he was suffered, or could have suffered, in the esteem of others by reason of this
publication.
The gist of the actionable injury in libel and slander consists exclusively of the impairment of the
reputation of the injured party. It is not the direct wrong to the individual that constitutes the actionable
tort. For this reason proof of publication is always essential. That is, the defamatory matter must appear
to have been given out under conditions that third persons may understand it as applicable to the
injured party. And this fact must appear as an essential ingredient of the plaintiff's case.
In section 11 of Act No. 277, it is declared that the person libeled shall be entitled to recover in a civil
action not only the actual pecuniary damages sustained by him but also damages for injury to his
feelings and reputation. Hot words of abuse, or words of insult, which pass between parties to a
personal altercation and which are not heard of others, supply no ground for an action for slander. By
analogy, defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the person upon whom the
imputation is cast, affords no ground of action unless it be shown that readers of the libel could have
identified the personality of the individual defamed.

Kunkle v. Cablenews American

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kunkle v. Cablenews American

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kunkle v. Cablenews American

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-16488 February 8, 1922

FREDERICK A. KUNKLE, plaintiff-appellant,

vs. THE CABLENEWS-AMERICAN and NORBERT LYONS, defendants-appellees.

G. E. Campbell for appellant.

Lawrence & Ross and Ewald E. Selph for appellees.

Issue: Whether or not the article is libelous in nature.

You might also like