Showing posts sorted by relevance for query judge lee akazaki. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query judge lee akazaki. Sort by date Show all posts

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).
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 15 July 2026

Balita Loses Appeal, Ordered to Pay Liwayway Miranda $0.5-M



Volume 8, Issue No. 2
OPINION/COMMENTARY
/ News That Fears None, Views That Favor Nobody /

. . . . . A community service of The Filipino Web Channel (TheFilipinoWebChannel@gmail.com) and the Philippine Village Voice (PhilVoiceNews@aol.com) for the information and understanding of Filipinos and the diverse communities in North America and Europe . . . 

Our latest as of Wednesday, July 15, 2026 

~ What essentially began as a social media catfight that had turned into a bitter squabble in court has come to an end with the losing party ordered to pay up nearly half-a-million dollars for defaming a Toronto businessperson. A decision has been rendered recently by a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upholding a trial court judge's earlier decision in the defamation case and throwing out an appeal. 

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

LIWAYWAY MIRANDA'S SUIT V. TESS CUSIPAG UPHELD

Balita Loses Defamation Case; To Pay $0.5-Million in Damages



 By ROMEO P. MARQUEZ 
Editor, The Filipino Web Channel


"Justice will overtake fabricators of lies and false witnesses." — Heraclitus


TORONTO - The Court of Appeal for Ontario, the province's highest level of court, has rejected an appeal by Balita and its publisher Tess Cusipag to set aside a trial judge's decision finding them liable for defamation and awarding damages amounting to nearly half-a-million dollars to businesswoman Liwayway Miranda.

The decision reached by a panel of three judges puts an end to the acrimonious personal quarrel between the two women who, in age, are generations apart. More broadly, it could significantly impact the current practice of entertainment-oriented journalism in the Filipino community.

For Ms. Miranda, it's a triumph of justice, a further vindication that restores her dignity and reputation as an entrepreneur which, for the most part, had been soiled by false accusations instigated by envious competitors. 

For Ms. Cusipag, it adds to an extraordinary record of recidivism consisting of costly court losses with one case resulting in her serving 13 days in jail for criminal contempt of court.

Ms. Miranda previously owned the Toronto-based A&L Hammer Workforce Management where she was CEO and president. It shuttered after six Filipino farmworkers who lied about their status, dishonestly accused her of human trafficking. 

(Videos: 

Ms. Cusipag, on the other hand, is publisher and self-named editor of Balita, a fortnightly tabloid circulated in Toronto, founded by her late husband, journalist Ruben Cusipag.


Handed down in March this year, the judgment provides, among others: 

"THIS COURT ORDERS that the defendants shall be permanently enjoined from, directly or indirectly, publishing and/or broadcasting, or encouraging or assisting others to publish or broadcast any statements about the plaintiff, in any manner whatsoever, which in their plain or ordinary meaning or by innuendo be similar to the defamatory statements made in the December 18, 2022 Balita article titled “BEWARE… Toronto scammers abound around us!” or the statements of the defendant, Teresita “Tess” Cusipag, on social media concerning the plaintiff." (italics mine).

The now-forbidden statement, first published in Balita in 2020 and republished in 2022, and then posted on Ms. Cusipag's Facebook account, is at the heart of Ms. Miranda's complaint filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


In April 2025, Superior Court Justice R. Lee Akazaki, expressing outrage at Ms. Cusipag's conduct, affirmed Ms. Miranda's defamation complaint, and awarded her general and punitive damages totalling $250,000, and costs of $100,000. The amount has since grown to almost $500,000 to include lawyer's fees of $125,000 and interest.

Ms. Cusipag, apparently stung by Justice Lee's decision, asked the Court of Appeal for Ontario to toss it. The panel of three justices - Lorne Sossin, Sally A. Gomery, and Peter J. Osborne - heard the appeal on March 12, 2026, and two weeks later, on March 30, 2026, rejected it and handed down their decision.


Reached for comment, Ms. Miranda said her lawyers "will enforce the order/judgment soon." It has been three months since that decision was promulgated, but her money doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

She asks in Tagalog: "May pera ba sya o naghihirap na? Bakit ang yabang niya sa Facebook pero hindi naman ako mabayaran." (Loosely translated: "Does she have money or has gone bankrupt? Why is she so arrogant on Facebook but couldn't pay me.)

She adds: "I want to know bakit hanggang ngayon hindi nya ako binabayaran ganung panay ang post nya sa Facebook ng mansion nya, tour nya around the world at panay ang sponsor nya ng mga events." (Translation: I want to know why she hasn't paid me, yet she posts on Facebook her mansion, tours, and sponsorship of events.)

An attorney for Ms. Miranda previously said Ms. Cusipag and Balita are "repeat offenders" as they have shown, in the lawyer's words, "a consistent practice of publishing false allegations of fraud against reputable individuals." 


In the annals of community journalism in Toronto, liability findings by courts of law of defamation by a tabloid publisher, especially because she's a self-declared editor without any training or background as a journalist, is quite rare. 

Justice Akazaki took note of that in the decision finding Ms. Cusipag and Balita liable for defaming Ms. Miranda. (Full story: https://filwebchannelmagazine.blogspot.com/search?q=judge+lee+akazaki).

"Apart from her evidence that she took over Balita from her husband," the judge noted, "Ms. Cusipag did not provide any evidence of any training or background in journalism." 

According to him, "Balita misused its position as a popular publication in the Filipino community as a bully pulpit to inflict harm to Ms. Miranda’s reputation." 

As it stands today, Ms. Cusipag has accumulated three losses out of five defamation suits (two were dismissed) against her and the paper, and one jail time (sentenced to 21 days and released after serving13 days) for criminal contempt of court.

Monetary damages in all the cases, including the latest one by Ms. Miranda, have now reached close to $1.5 million. That could severely impact her oft-repeated boast that she's a millionaire. (Copyright 2026. All Rights Reserved.)
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 28 April 2025

Balita 'Wronged' Businesswoman Liwayway Miranda, Says Ontario Superior Court in a Decision That Awards Her $250,000

Volume 6, Issue No. 47 
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 Monday, April 28, 2025 

~ The purported "crusade" by Balita publisher/editor Teresita "Tess" Cusipag to rid the Filipino community of scammers had turned into a personal campaign vilifying her archenemy, the businesswoman Liwayway Miranda. The latter filed filed a defamation suit and after 26 months of wrangling at the Ontario Superior Court, the former lost the legal battle. Justice R. Lee Akazaki found her and the tabloid liable for defamation and awarded Ms. Miranda $250,000 in damages. 

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

BALITA'S LEGACY OF DEFEAT 
Cusipag's Animus Leads to Downfall 
Reviving Old Comment v. Ms. Miranda Proved Fatal 


By ROMEO P. MARQUEZ 
Editor, The Filipino Web Channel


 "Envy has been, is, and shall be, the destruction of many. What is there, that Envy hath not defamed, or Malice left undefiled? Truly, no good thing." - Pythagoras 


TORONTO - Had she been circumspect and kept her animus in control, Teresita "Tess" Cusipag, publisher/editor of Balita, could have avoided the humiliating rebuke and the accompanying quarter-of-a-million dollar penalty imposed by Ontario Superior Court. 

Her impulse got in the way again to cloud her better judgment. And it wasn't the first time either that emotions took over reason, thus, one loss followed another and another until her vindictiveness carved a legacy of defeat. 

It's bizarre for a non-journalist to be penalized three times and jailed once for criminal contempt after losing defamation cases by three separate individuals, the latest by businesswoman Liwayway Miranda. 
 

Well, she had a bad call when she salvaged the original 2020 article slamming Ms. Miranda and republished it in December 2022 to make it current, giving Ms. Miranda a new opportunity that she had lost earlier because of libel law limitation to file defamation charges against Ms. Cusipag. 

In fact, I had warned in an article that Ms. Cusipag was exposing herself to a potential lawsuit by republishing her unfounded accusations. Well, that hunch has been proven true, now! 


If Ms. Cusipag had just stayed quiet after her 2020 attack, she probably would not be worrying forking $250,000 to Ms. Miranda to satisfy the judgment against her. 

The incident showed how little she understood her role as publisher/editor of Balita. Ontario Superior Court Justice R. Lee Akazaki 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." 

That's the judge bursting her bubble. It's like saying why are you in the newspaper business when you don't know anything about journalism, much less its perils, and risk being hailed to court for publishing what basically amounted to gossip as what had happened lately. 

Writing has limitations just as much as the exercise of the right of free expression. And those limitations are embodied in the laws governing defamation. In Ontario, the Libel and Slander Act covers those issues. 

Not to add to her pain of losing, but her understanding - if there's one at all - seemed to rest on what's told by some of her ignorant and incompetent friends who are out there to butter her up. I knew that from experience while writing for the paper. 

The lawyers who handled her (our, because I was also a defendant) defense in the first two cases were recommended by friends. On what basis, I still don't know. After our loss, Ms. Cusipag admitted without naming names, thus: "I made a mistake of fighting by hiring the wrong person to defend us . . . " 

True, that fact proved fatal to our defense, and as a result, she had to recompense the plaintiffs for defaming them in the amount nearly $500,000 each, for an aggregate of almost a million dollars. 


I initially thought she had learned her lesson when she vowed in late January 2023 to fight Ms. Miranda's lawsuit, promising to sign up, to quote her own words, "not just lawyers anymore" but "good ones instead." 

But the trial came and went during the last two years and no lawyers (plural) who are "good ones" ever surfaced to defend Ms. Cusipag in court. 


Who showed up was the person she was promoting in Balita who, she said, was "a well-known paralegal . . . and "soon to be a practicing lawyer Jun Saludares." 

So, it appeared that Ms. Cusipag was just being hyperbolic at that time. Justice Akazaki had this to say: "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." 


Obviously, Ms. Cusipag relied heavily on the say-so of Saludares even if she knew she was unequipped with the knowledge and skill to continue portraying Ms. Miranda in a bad light. Indeed, she was courting disaster. 

As faulty as her "factual" assertions were, the court found what Justice Akazaki stated, that: "It turned out that the only source of her information was the paralegal, Mr. Saludares – the same Mr. Saludares who, now a lawyer, represented her and Balita at trial." 

Saludares had remarked that Ms. Miranda was “summa cum laude of scammers” - the very same defamatory words picked by Ms. Cusipag in her renewed effort in 2022 to destroy Ms. Miranda. 

In an overview of his "reasons for judgment," Justice Akazaki wrote: "Balita published false exposés about Liwayway 'Lily' Miranda, intentionally damaging her reputation to prevent her from restarting her employment recruitment agency." 

He continued: "Balita’s campaign against Ms. Miranda began with a February 2020 report of a community meeting penned by Ms. Cusipag with the headline, “IWAS SCAM, Elite Crusaders to help.” 

"It cited one of the speakers, 'a well-known paralegal ... aiming for the bar' who described: one immigration exploiters [sic] that he rates as the summa cum laude of all the scammers here in the community. ... The scammer lady (later identified as Ms. Miranda by Ms. Cusipag) according to the speaker started a cleaning business, contracting different lawyers to obviously start her racket again." 

To this, Justice Akazaki said: "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." 

To sum it all up, the judge said: 

- Ms. Cusipag's "defence that she had verified the report of Ms. Miranda as a fraudster 'from several court decisions' turned out wholly unfounded." 

- "The defendants (Ms. Cusipag and Balita) tendered no evidence of the source of this portrayal of Ms. Miranda as the central figure in a global fraud network" and as such "The defence of responsible communication has no basis in the evidence." 

- "The defence of fair comment is also groundless and must fail." 

- " . . . the limitations defence does not insulate the defendants from liability arising from the 2022 article and Ms. Cusipag’s personal posts." 

- "Whatever the consequence of the prosecution to her (Ms. Miranda's) life, she deserves to be compensated for an amount that signifies her status as a person wronged by the defendants’ publication." (Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved).
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 25 April 2025

Because of Her Ordeal, Balita Editor Whines and Blames

Volume 6, Issue No. 46
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 Friday, April 25, 2025 

~ Balita publisher/editor Teresita "Tess" Cusipag went ballistic the moment she learned she lost in the defamation case filed against her by businesswoman Lily Miranda. That means paying up a total of $250,000 in damages for her egregious lies. As reality sinks in, she puts the blame for her ordeal on this writer, and forgets that it was her lawyer, Dominador "Jun" Saludares, who tried and failed in this latest legal fight. 

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

LAWSUIT LOSS MEANS PAYING UP $250,000
Cusipag Lays Blame Not On Her Lawyer
Liwayway Miranda's Suit Could Cripple Balita Tabloid



By ROMEO P. MARQUEZ 
Editor, The Filipino Web Channel



"Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others." - C.S. Lewis


TORONTO - Within minutes of the release of the Ontario Superior Court decision finding her and her paper liable for defamation, Teresita "Tess" Cusipag, publisher/editor of Balita tabloid, sent an email blaming this reporter for her latest ordeal.

She was unleashing her anger, after all the loss of a quarter of a million dollars in a lawsuit would further deplete what's left of her vaunted millionaire status (if that is true). Remember that she previously lost almost $1 million in damages in two other lawsuits.

It's clear to me that she's looking for someone to whine against, and despite the fact that I'd been out of Balita (I reported and wrote a column there for seven years ending in July 2019), she continues to hammer me like I'm a punching bag. 

She conveniently forgets that it's her lawyer, Dominador "Jun" Saludares, who defended her mindless postings in court and is responsible for her downfall. 

In late January 2023, Ms. Cusipag boasted that she would fight the lawsuit brought against her by Liwayway Miranda and hire "not just lawyers anymore" but "good ones instead," ostensibly alluding to previous losses. 

So it's safe to say that in her judgment, her categorization of "good ones" included Saludares and no other simply because it was him who fought her legal battle against Ms. Miranda.


Ms. Cusipag writes without regard for punctuations (and she's supposed to be an editor). She says in an email: "the news tht lily won the case vs balita tht you provoked for reason only u know.  How I was being punished for unknown reasons.  How I lost all my resources because of lawsuits tht you created.  Am going to appeal this but I just hope tht you are not gloating after all I was able to help you too wen you were starting life here in Canada"  

Look at her language: "Case I provoked". "Punished for unknown reasons." "Lawsuits I created." I don't know if she's out of her mind or just in complete denial. Is age catching up?

But reading through the decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice R. Lee Akazaki, it appears that Ms. Cusipag was dishonest and lied about it. (Related story: https://filwebchannelmagazine.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-lies-and-fantastic-tales-of-eino.html).

She had just been slapped with a $250,000 penalty in a libel suit by Ms. Miranda over her unfounded allegation that she was a "scammer hunted by victims" whom she allegedly owed "millions of dollars."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ms. Cusipag's assertions, originally published in Balita in 2020 and reposted on social media in 2022, were fatuous lies, so egregious that they offend the court's sense of decency.

Ms. Miranda's counsel - Mohsen Seddigh and Maria Arabella Robles - had stated that starting in February 2020, Ms. Cusipag and Balita published articles and statements "falsely accusing - expressly and by implication - Ms. Miranda of fraud, scams, swindling, racketeering, 'faked investing, being a 'Scammer', credit card theft, forgery, blackmail, threats, providing licensed services without licenses, etc.".

The trial had unraveled that Ms. Cusipag had relied on her lawyer, Dominador "Jun" Saludares, for the reposts she did claiming that Ms. Miranda, in his own words, was the "summa cum laude" of "scammers." The judge said it was an "inflammatory mischaracterization."

The description was picked up by Ms. Cusipag twice, once in 2020, and again on December 18, 2022 in Balita. In addition, the court noted that she also accused Ms. Miranda of distributing “reject ham and sausages to the people in violation of the Ministry of Health instructions” and declaring, in all-caps: “JUST GET LAID TO EARN MONEY.”

"It turned out," said the court, "that the only source of her information was the paralegal, Mr. Saludares – the same Mr. Saludares who, now a lawyer, represented her and Balita at trial."
By way of background, Saludares was cited by The Law Society of Ontario for professional misconduct in 2019. The summary decision reads: (Full text at: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlst/doc/2019/2019onlsth12/2019onlsth12.html) 

"SALUDARES – Professional Misconduct – Findings and Penalty – Facilitating Fraud, Failing to Comply with Client Verification Requirements, Acting Outside Scope – The Paralegal entered an agreed statement of facts and admitted that he committed professional misconduct as alleged when he accepted a retainer to collect a purported debt of over $500,000 in circumstances where he ought to have known that the client was engaged in fraud – Joint penalty submission for three-month suspension and $5,000 in costs with two years to pay accepted as reasonable – Although there had been significant neglect of duty and a substantial fraud in the amount of $434,764, the respondent was a new licensee, remorseful and had immediately reported the matter to police upon realizing the cheques were fraudulent and fully co-operated with the Law Society."

In the decision rendered on Wednesday, April 23, Justice R. Lee Akazaki stated that "Ms. Cusipag considered his (Saludares') 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'." 

"Beyond the beliefs they held," the judge wrote, "the defendants tendered no evidence to justify the characterization of the plaintiff as the perpetrator of a scam, or any similar scheme to defraud the workers they recruited."

In awarding Ms. Miranda $150,000 in general damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, the judge explained that the fine "is meant to act as a deterrent to the defendant and to others from acting in this manner." 

He wrote: "It is important to emphasize that punitive damages should only be awarded in those circumstances where the combined award of general and aggravated damages would be insufficient to achieve the goal of punishment and deterrence." (Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved).
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)