Wednesday, 23 April 2025

Lily Miranda Is Vindicated: Balita, Cusipag Liable for Defamation

Volume 6, Issue No. 45

OPINION/COMMENTARY
/ News That Fears None, Views That Favor Nobody /

. . . . . A community service of Romar Media Canada, The Filipino Web Channel (TheFilipinoWebChannel@gmail.com) and the Philippine Village Voice (PhilVoiceNews@gmail.com) for the information and understanding of Filipinos and the diverse communities in North America . . . . . .
 
Our latest as of Wednesday, April 23, 2025 

~ For the third time in a row, Balita tabloid and its publisher/editor Teresita "Tess" Cusipag were found liable for defamation in the libel case filed in 2023 by businesswoman Lily Miranda. Ontario Superior Court Justice R. Lee Akazaki awarded general and punitive damages to Ms. Miranda as "means by which the jury or judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant (Balita and Ms. Cusipag)."  

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 


MS. LIWAYWAY MIRANDA IS VINDICATED
Balita, Cusipag Liable for Defamation
The Superior Court Today Issued Its Decision




By ROMEO P. MARQUEZ 
Editor, The Filipino Web Channel



TORONTO - In a scathing rebuke of its lack of "standard care of a reasonable journalist," the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found Balita tabloid and its publisher, Teresita Cusipag, liable for defaming businesswoman Liwayway Miranda, also known as Lily Hammer.

The debacle meant another huge loss - the third out of five cases - for the non-journalist publisher/editor and her picture-laden entertainment sheet, once referred to as "Toronto's largest Filipino newspaper." 

"Balita misused its position as a popular publication in the Filipino community as a bully pulpit to inflict harm to Ms. Miranda’s reputation," Justice R. Lee Akazaki said in his decision released on Wednesday, April 23.

The judgment was the culmination of 26 months of litigation between the two parties that had been sparked by Ms. Cusipag's continuous assertions on social media impugning Ms. Miranda's character and reputation.

The judge awarded Ms. Miranda $150,000 in general damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. 

He explained: "Punitive damages may be awarded in situations where the defendant's misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high-handed that it offends the court's sense of decency. 

"Punitive damages bear no relation to what the plaintiff should receive by way of compensation. Their aim is not to compensate the plaintiff, but rather to punish the defendant. It is the means by which the jury or judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant." 

Justice Akazaki noted Ms. Cusipag's lack of journalism credentials. He said: "Apart from her evidence that she took over Balita from her husband, Ms. Cusipag did not provide any evidence of any training or background in journalism." 

"The words written and published by Ms. Cusipag in Balita unquestionably defamed Ms. Miranda," the judge wrote. (Related story: https://filwebchannelmagazine.blogspot.com/2023/02/balita-tabloid-editor-in-new-libel-suit.html).

"The defendants (Ms. Cusipag and Balita) are liable to pay Ms. Miranda damages for the effect on her reputation and punitive damages for defying the libel notices and intentionally carrying on the campaign to inflict further harm," the judge stated.

Justice Akazaki also cited Ms. Cusipag's lawyer, Jun Saludares, for putting himself in an "awkward position" as "Ms. Cusipag's sole source" of the original defamatory statement.

"I gleaned from Ms. Cusipag’s evidence and from her words in the 2020 article that Mr. Saludares was one of the 'Elite Crusaders' and that she ascribed faith or credibility in his professional judgment as a paralegal and candidate for the bar. (Related story: https://filwebchannelmagazine.blogspot.com/2020/01/who-in-toronto-is-real-swindler.html).

"Since Ms. Cusipag admitted that she had never read the Small Claims Court judgments, her defence that she had verified the report of Ms. Miranda as a fraudster “from several court decisions” turned out wholly unfounded."

The judge continued: "In addition to reporting Mr. Saludares’ remarks without any attempt to verify them, Ms. Cusipag considered his words as licence to invent her own story of hundreds of recruits seeking to recover millions of dollars from Ms. Miranda, who took them 'for a ride.' 

"The defendants tendered no evidence of the source of this portrayal of Ms. Miranda as the central figure in a global fraud network." More to follow. (Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved).

No comments:

Post a Comment