Lino Celle & Radio Mindanao v. Filipino Reporter

• Decision Date: 01 August 1998
• Docket Number: D,No. 98-9250,No. 1601,1601,98-9250
• Parties: (2nd Cir. 2000) LINO CELLE and RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FILIPINO REPORTER ENTERPRISES INC. and LIBERTITO PELAYO, Defendants-Appellants. ocket
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 163

209 F.3d 163 (2nd Cir. 2000)

LINO CELLE and RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FILIPINO REPORTER ENTERPRISES INC. and LIBERTITO PELAYO, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 1601, Docket No. 98-9250

August Term, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Argued: April 16, 1999

Decided: April 12, 2000

Appeal from a judgment, following a jury trial, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Chin, J.), in favor of plaintiffs who alleged that they had been libeled by a series of newspaper articles. Cf. Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises, Inc., Civ. No. 97-3801, 1998 WL 85822 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (denying defendants' motion to dismiss).

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Remanded to the district court with instructions. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] JUDAH D. GREENBLATT, New York, NY (Greenblatt, Softness & Lesser, LLP, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

MICHAEL D. CARLIN, New York, NY for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: JACOBS and STRAUB, Circuit Judges, and WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.^*

Judge Jacobs dissents in a separate opinion.

WEINSTEIN, District Judge:

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                

                I INTRODUCTION..........................................171
                

                II FACTS................................................172
                   A  Parties...........................................172
                   B  Ty Litigation.....................................172
                   C  The Three Articles................................172
                1 First Article.................................172
                2 Second Article................................173
                3 Third Article.................................173
                   D  District Court Proceedings........................173
                

                III LAW.................................................175
                    A  Choice...........................................175
                    B  Libel............................................176
                1 Public Figures................................176
                2 Defamation....................................177
                a  Principles of Interpretation.........177
                b  Defamatory Meaning...................178
                c  Opinion..............................178
                d  Defamatory Per Se....................179
                e  Single Instance Rule.................180
                3 Falsity.......................................181
                4 Actual Malice.................................182
                5 Punitive Damages..............................184
                

                IV  APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS.........................185
                    A  Form of Jury Charge..............................185
                    B  Single Instance Rule.............................185
                    C  First Article....................................185
                

                1 Defamation....................................185
                2 Falsity.......................................186
                3 Actual Malice.................................186
                D  Second Article.......................................187
                1 Defamation....................................187
                2 Falsity.......................................188
                E  Third Article........................................189
                1 Defamation....................................189
                2 Falsity.......................................189
                3 Actual Malice.................................190
                F  Punitive Damages.....................................190
                

                V   CONCLUSION..........................................191
                

I. INTRODUCTION

This case illustrates the continuing difficulty in balancing protection of reputation and freedom to publish. See U.S. Const. amend. 1. The scale is calibrated by a combination of state libel law and federal First Amendment doctrine. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52 (1988) ("False statements of fact are particularly valueless; . . . they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective. But even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves, they are nevertheless inevitable in free debate, and a rule that would impose strict liability on a publisher for false factual assertions would have an undoubted chilling effect on speech relating to public figures that does have constitutional value. Freedoms of expression require breathing space." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 203 (1979) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("States undeniably have an interest in affording individuals some measure of protection from unwarranted defamatory attacks. Libel actions serve that end, not only by assuring a forum in which reputations can be publicly vindicated and dignitary injuries compensated, but also by creating incentives for the press to exercise considered judgment before publishing material that compromises personal integrity."); see generally Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 517 (1971) ("[T]he law of libel seeks to protect various individual interests against injury resulting from false and defamatory communication. It runs squarely into the right to freedom of expression.").

Both trial and appellate judges are obliged to exercise a heightened standard of jury supervision in protecting the media's freedom of speech while taking steps to ensure that this freedom is not abused to injure others. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17 (1990) ("[I]n cases raising First Amendment issues . . . an appellate court has an obligation to 'make an independent examination of the whole record' in order to make sure that the 'judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.'"); cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 88 (1976) (Stewart, J., dissenting) ("[Courts] must never forget that the consequences of rigorously enforcing the guarantees of the First Amendment are frequently unpleasant. Much speech that seems to be of little or no value will enter the market place of ideas, threatening the quality of our social discourse and, more generally, the serenity of our lives. But that is the price to be paid for constitutional freedom.").

Here the jury found that the individual plaintiff and his radio station had been libeled in three newspaper articles published by the individual defendant and his newspaper. Although the jury concluded that plaintiff had not suffered actual damages it awarded $1.00 in nominal damages and $15,000 in punitive damages.

The finding of libel as to the first and third articles was sufficiently supported by the evidence. The finding of libel with respect to the second article was not supported by the evidence as analyzed under the demanding standards of New York's libel law and the First Amendment.

Despite this partial failure of proof, the $1.00 nominal damages award as to the first and third articles is affirmed. Moreover, the jury had ample evidence to support the conclusion that defendants acted with malice and ill will towards plaintiffs in publishing the first and third articles. Given the failure of proof with respect to the second article, however, the punitive damages award is excessive by the amount of $5,000.

II. FACTS

A. Parties

Plaintiff-appellee Lino Celle is a radio commentator at Radyo Pinoy. His listeners come mainly from the Filipino-American community of the New York City area and northern New Jersey (the "Metropolitan" area). Radyo Pinoy is a "side carrier," - in order to listen to its programs a special radio is required to pick up its frequency. Celle is also the president of Radyo Pinoy's owner, plaintiff-appellee Radio Mindanao-USA, Inc. ("RMN-USA"), and a columnist for the newspaper Headline Philippines.

Catering to the same community as Celle, defendant-appellant Libertito Pelayo is the editor-in-chief and a journalist for the newspaper Filipino Reporter. Pelayo is also president of defendant-appellant Filipino Reporters Enterprises, Inc., which owns and operates the Filipino Reporter.

Pelayo and Celle share a disaffection for one another resulting in part from their operation of competing media for the Metropolitan Filipino-American community. It was exacerbated by newspaper articles Celle wrote in 1995 and 1996 about a criminal conviction of Pelayo's daughter.

B. Ty Litigation

Some of the libel claims at issue relate to Pelayo's reporting of an otherwise unrelated defamation suit brought by one Magdalena Ty against Celle and Radyo Pinoy. Ty alleged that during a February 1995 radio broadcast Celle described her as a "swindler," a "cheat," and "itchy." She claimed that Celle's insults were prompted by his (in her view, erroneous) belief that she had failed to pay for advertising spots broadcast by Radyo Pinoy.

Celle and RMN-USA moved for summary judgment in the Ty case. The court denied the motion in an opinion dated April 9, 1997, ruling that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether, in making the allegedly defamatory statements about Ty, Celle had been negligent. See Ty v. Celle, No. Civ. 95-2631, 1997 WL 167041, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 1997). The opinion also declared that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Celle's statements about Ty - including his suggestion that she welshed on her debts - were truthful. Id.

C. The Three Articles

This suit arises out of three articles published in two consecutive issues of the weekly Filipino Reporter. The seven statements that form the basis for plaintiffs' action are emphasized in the text below, and identified by bullet points.

1. First Article

On April 11, 1997, the Filipino Reporter published a front page article reporting the Ty summary judgment decision. The main headline of the article read: "Pinoy radioman's trial for libel going to a jury." Beneath the main headline was another (smaller) sub-headline. It and the first sentence of the article constitute the first statement at issue in the article:

* US judge finds Celle 'negligent' A United States...