Lagunzad vs. Vda. de Gonzales

• Parties involved


  • Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman
  • Maria Soto Vda. de Gonzales, the mother of Moises Padilla, a deceased public figure
• Main issue


  Whether or not the fictionalized representation of Moises Padilla is an infringement of his right to privacy notwithstanding that he was a public figure.
• What Lagunzad claimed


  The licensing agreement was null and void due to duress, intimidation, and undue influence
• What Gonzales sued Lagunzad for

  The unauthorized use of her son's life story in the movie
• What the Court of Appeals ruled

  Affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling in favor of Gonzales and affirming the validity of the licensing agreement
• What the Supreme Court ruled

  Ruled in favor of Gonzales and affirmed the validity of the licensing agreement
• Legal principles the court based its decision on

  • Lagunzad needed the consent and authority of the deceased's heirs to publicly portray episodes from his life
  • Being a public figure does not automatically negate a person's right to privacy
  • Lagunzad's consent to the agreement was not procured through duress, intimidation, or undue influence
  • The agreement did not infringe on Lagunzad's constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press
• What the court held about the right to control the commercial exploitation of a person's life story

  The right belongs to the heirs of the deceased
• What the court held about the right to privacy of a public figure

  Being a public figure does not automatically destroy a person's right to privacy
• What the court found about Lagunzad's consent

  Lagunzad's consent to the licensing agreement was not procured through duress, intimidation, or undue influence
• The limits of freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.
• does being a public figure automatically destroy a person's right?

  No. While public figures have diminished privacy in certain aspects of their lives, this does not extend to fictional or novelized representations that could violate their privacy rights.
• Is freedom of expression absolute, given that it holds a preferred position in civil liberty hierarchies?


  No, it is not absolute and may be subject to limitations. Again, the limit of freedom of expression is reached when expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.
• Is the Licensing Agreement valid, although Lagunzad claims that he entered it under duress and coercion?

  Yes, the Licensing Agreement is valid.   A contract is valid even if one party enters into it reluctantly or against their better judgment, as long as there is no legal impediment to its enforcement.