Administrator to be liable on members libel post on Facebook

Hi. I am an administrator of a facebook group. I named it freewall and I put a disclaimer that any member who will participate will take personal responsibility on his/her comments, and information provided and nobody is liable except himself/herself.

If somebody is defamed in my wall, is there a possibility that I will be also legally liable with the aggressor even I posted the disclaimer?

Hope to get your advise. Thanks a lot.

i would argue yes, if you allowed to remain after you learned of its posting

Atty, The below was was sent to me in conjunction that there is no facebook libel case in Philippines. Could you please advise. Thanks.

Former Department of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez ruling dated 20 June 2009 said that there is no crime of internet libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

According to the Resolution, Article 355 of the RPC specifically provides for the manner when libel can be committed which is by writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition or any similar means. When the RPC was enacted in 1932, the legislature did not intend to include internet communication as a means of committing libel because there was no computer or internet at that time. Thus, as ruled by the Supreme Court, the language of a penal statute cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms in order to carry into effect the general purpose for which it was enacted. Considering that posting of messages in the internet is not similarly situated with the items enumerated in Article 355 of the RPC, it cannot be considered as a criminal offense under the principle of ejusdem generis. Hence, the respondents in the case were not held liable for libel for there is no law that defines and punishes libel in the internet unlike newspapers, television and radio communications.

arktclegal wrote:Atty, The below was was sent to me in conjunction that there is no facebook libel case in Philippines. Could you please advise. Thanks.

Former Department of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez ruling dated 20 June 2009 said that there is no crime of internet libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

According to the Resolution, Article 355 of the RPC specifically provides for the manner when libel can be committed which is by writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition or any similar means. When the RPC was enacted in 1932, the legislature did not intend to include internet communication as a means of committing libel because there was no computer or internet at that time. Thus, as ruled by the Supreme Court, the language of a penal statute cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms in order to carry into effect the general purpose for which it was enacted. Considering that posting of messages in the internet is not similarly situated with the items enumerated in Article 355 of the RPC, it cannot be considered as a criminal offense under the principle of ejusdem generis. Hence, the respondents in the case were not held liable for libel for there is no law that defines and punishes libel in the internet unlike newspapers, television and radio communications.

until now we don’t have any law for a libel done thru internet. Internet is still a safe place to destroy the credibility of one person.

Hi concepab, how can we confirm this? may kilala po ba kayong lawyer na pwedeng mag verify nito?

if you print the FB timeline where the libel was made, it is admissible as evidence supported by ecommerce law.

a few prerequisite though:

1. dapat account nya tlaga gamit nya (walang alias, hindi pwedeng juan dela cruz)
2. dapat yung name mo fully written (hindi pwedeng si inday sa kanto)

have seen it used by NBI in a couple of cases as evidence

arktclegal wrote:Hi concepab, how can we confirm this? may kilala po ba kayong lawyer na pwedeng mag verify nito?

i don't agree with that legal opinion of sec. gonzales. the supreme court referred to it in passing but did not make any statement as to its validity. it only has persuasive, but not conclusive effect.