Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lagunzad Vs Sotto Vda Gonzales
Lagunzad Vs Sotto Vda Gonzales
De Gonzales
92 SCRA 476
Facts:
(1) Whether or not private respondent have any property right over the life
of Moises Padilla since the latter was a public figure.
(2) Whether or not the Licensing Agreement infringes on the constitutional
right of freedom of speech and of the press.
Ruling:
1. Yes. While it is true that petitioner had purchased the rights to the book
entitled "The Moises Padilla Story," that did not dispense with the need for
prior consent and authority from the deceased heirs to portray publicly
episodes in said deceased's life and in that of his mother and the members
of his family. As held in Schuyler v. Curtis,” a privilege may be given
the surviving relatives of a deceased person to protect his memory,
but the privilege exists for the benefit of the living, to protect their
feelings and to prevent a violation of their own rights in the
character and memory of the deceased."
Being a public figure ipso facto does not automatically destroy in toto
a person's right to privacy. The right to invade a person's privacy to
disseminate public information does not extend to a fictional or
novelized representation of a person, no matter how public a figure
he or she may be. In the case at bar, while it is true that petitioner
exerted efforts to present a true-to-life story of Moises Padilla, petitioner
admits that he included a little romance in the film because without it, it
would be a drab story of torture and brutality.
2. No. From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would
appear that the right is not susceptible of any limitation. No law may be
passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. It would be too
much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain
unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press for
recognition.
The prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is
such a limitation. Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of
speech and of the press, which includes such vehicles of the mass media as
radio, television and the movies, is the "balancing-of-interests test." The
principle requires a court to take conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given
situation or type of situation."
In the case at bar, the interests observable are the right to privacy
asserted by respondent and the right of -freedom of expression invoked by
petitioner. Taking into account the interplay of those interests, we hold that
under the particular circumstances presented, and considering the
obligations assumed in the Licensing Agreement entered into by petitioner,
the validity of such agreement will have to be upheld particularly because
the limits of freedom of expression are reached when expression touches
upon matters of essentially private concern.
Nachura:
The Court granted the petition to restrain the public exhibition of
the movie “Moises Padilla Story”, because it contained fictionalized
embellishments.