FG by counsel

        An on-line journalist  asked for my opinion on the following (but I was in a meeting so I couldn’t take his call): Anyway, he asked for my opinion on the following: 1.    quote: “in FG’s countersuit against the journalists (who filed a class suit against him), Mike Arroyo through counsel claimed that media organizations like CMFR, PCIJ, and Tribune, as co-complainants are not covered by the free press clause of the Constitution, only individual practitioners are; and

      2.    “journalists, he also asserted cannot file a class suit because there’s no juridical entity called Philippine press.” Unquote.         

          I was able to take his call later and told him that under the Rules of Court, when the plaintiffs are too numerous to be all named, several individuals representing them can file a class action representing the entire class. He asked for the section  number of the exact provision of the Rules of Court  but because I wasn’t holding a book and wasn’t in the office when he called (I don’t walk around with the Rules of Court), I informed him he could find it in the internet.           

      

        Anyway, I said I wasn’t going to give any legal opinion in this blog anymore,  (so that we could let the staffmembers of politicians do the work for their principals J  ); but anyway, I was asked, and it was a matter of  public interest.        

           The following is the pertinent provision on what  a class action is:                    Rules of Court                    Rule 3. Parties to Civil Action Sec. 12. Class suit. When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.      

          

           Based on this provision therefore, I said that the ground that the journalists cannot file a class action because the Philippine press is not a juridical entity,  is not a requirement in the filing of a class action,  and as quoted in Number 2 of the text, is a ground that I’ve “never heard of”.                 

         The ground quoted in Number 1, that the CMFR, PCIJ, etc. are not covered by the free-press clause and only individual practitioners are covered, is, I said, also a “never-heard-of” ground, there is no jurisprudence that says only individuals and not media organizations are covered by the free-press clause.       

          So, that’s what I said.        

         I looked again at the text an hour later and thought, to be fair to FG’s lawyer,  that he (FG’s lawyer) must have meant something else in his motion. Because  CORPORATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CANNOT CLAIM MORAL DAMAGES FOR mental anguish, hurt feelings, sleepless nights, etc. which are often the basis of moral damages; they can only claim moral damages for damage to reputation. That’s the legal principle there. If that was what he meant, then, alright. Corporations cannot claim moral damages for mental anguish, etc., only for damage to reputation. But don’t the parties here include individuals (natural persons) as well?                           Anyway, that’s not what the interviewer said/ asked for. It quoted FG’s lawyers as saying “not covered by the free-press clause” etc.                  Also, to be fair, too, lawyers will use whatever technical ground they can think of in motions to dismiss;  and clients, based on my experience, seldom read the pleadings/ motions filed by their lawyers except the initiatory pleading because they’re required to sign it.                           Anyway, the following are the grounds for a Motion to Dismiss in a civil action: (I haven’t read the motions and pleadings, I so I will just quote the rules):   

    

           RULE 16     MOTION TO DISMISS 

     

         Section 1. Grounds.   Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
  (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party; (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; (c) That venue is improperly laid; (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; (i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.       

          I’m guessing that FG’s lawyer is using “no legal capacity to sue” and “claim states no cause of action”.        

         As stated:  media organizations are covered by the free-press clause but if what FG’s lawyer is saying is, corporations cannot recover moral damages, then that’s another matter. Technical.