Re: Arturo Sayas & Cresencio Pilao – Editorial May 2009, Philippine SentinelWe are the solicitors for Arturo Sayas and Cresencio Pilao. Counsel has advised that our clients have been defamed in the May 2009 issue of the Philippine Sentinel.
In the editorial, it is alleged that our clients have caused a dark day in journalism. Defamatory imputations have been conveyed of and concerning our clients including that they have brought an unjustified defamation claim in the District Court and acted improperly in scheduling a court hearing when the solicitors for the Defendants were not prepared. Our clients have been accused of setting a hearing date which the Defendants did not know about. It is further imputed that the Plaintiffs forced the Defendants in the District Court action to settle against their will.
The purpose of this letter is to request an apology, damages and the payment of our legal costs. Should you not agree to the foregoing, our instructions are to issue defamation proceedings against you in the District Court claiming substantial damages. Any damages and costs awarded against you will be payable from your assets or by way of garnishee from your wages. Non payment could lead to bankruptcy. We await your advices. [sic]
LOLITA FARMER & ASSOCIATES
Dear Mrs. Farmer:
Nowhere in the editorial was it mentioned or imputed that it was your clients who caused “A Dark Day in Journalism.” Everything written is factual. There was no suppression order requested by you or your clients forbidding the publication of the events that took place on March 2 and 3 of 2009. What took place is not privileged and the readers of Philippine Sentinel have a right to know. We have reproduced on this page the contents of the editorial in question for the benefit of our readers who might have missed the May 2009 issue of Philippine Sentinel.
Editor