4/7/26, 12:00 PM

​

The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the complaint filed by GMA Network, Inc. against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation over alleged defamatory statements involving TV ratings manipulation.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied both GMA’s complaint for damages and ABS-CBN’s counterclaims. The Court ruled that the statements aired by ABS-CBN hosts were qualified privileged communications and formed part of a fair and accurate report.

The case stemmed from a 2007 contract between ABS-CBN and AGB Nielsen, which supplied TV ratings data for Mega Manila and other urban areas. The agreement required that the identities of selected households, known as “Panel Homes,” remain confidential to prevent interference. These ratings were important in determining which programs to air and when.

ABS-CBN later received reports that individuals allegedly linked to GMA approached some of these Panel Homes. The reports claimed that residents were encouraged to watch GMA programs in exchange for incentives, including cash and groceries.

A GMA employee from Iloilo testified that he and others were instructed to locate these households and persuade residents to favor GMA programs in exchange for money.

AGB Nielsen General Manager Maya Reforma also admitted in a letter and radio interview that the Panel Homes had been tampered with. ABS-CBN aired segments featuring her statements.

GMA then filed a complaint for damages, claiming that ABS-CBN misrepresented Reforma’s statements by suggesting that GMA manipulated the ratings. ABS-CBN, in turn, filed counterclaims.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of both parties. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings.

The SC explained that defamation involves false and malicious statements that damage a person’s reputation. However, some statements are considered privileged communications, meaning they are not automatically presumed malicious.

The Court found that ABS-CBN’s statements were qualified privileged, as they were based on available evidence, including Reforma’s interview and AGB Nielsen’s data analysis.

It also ruled that there was no proof of malice, noting that the reports were supported by documents.

Additionally, the SC said the statements were protected under the fair comment doctrine, which allows commentary on matters of public interest. As a major media company, GMA is considered a public figure and subject to public scrutiny.

The Court also rejected GMA’s argument under Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, reiterating that truth is a valid defense, especially when statements concern a public figure.

Finally, the SC dismissed ABS-CBN’s counterclaims, noting that GMA had sufficient basis to file its complaint based on its belief that the statements were defamatory.