THE Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its decision which dismissed the P100-million civil suit filed by GMA Network Inc. against its rival, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. in connection with the latter’s accusation that it stole its exclusive footage of the arrival of Iraqi hostage victim Angelo de la Cruz in 2004.

In a two-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Florito Macalino, the CA’s Former Sixth Division denied GMA Network’s motion for reconsideration as it failed to raise new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its decision issued on August 15, 2011.

“Acting on the said motion, the court finds no cogent reason to warrant reconsideration of the said decision. The motion has not raised any new or substantial ground or reason that would call for the countermanding of the Court’s ruling,” the CA declared.

“Accordingly, there is no justifying circumstance that would sanction the reversal of the decision,” it added.

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Juan Enriquez and Ramon Bato Jr.

In its August 15 decision, the CA nullified the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City on December 17, 2007 and July 18, 2008, which reinstated GMA’s civil suit against ABS-CBN and denied the latter’s motion for reconsideration, respectively.

In the same orders, the trial court suspended proceedings on the civil case for damages pending disposition of the criminal case for libel.

The appellate court ruled that the trial court violated Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court when it ordered the reinstatement of GMA 7’s civil suit despite the pendency of the criminal complaint for libel filed by GMA Network against ABS-CBN, and where the complaint for damages arose.

The said rule, according to the appellate court, explicitly provides that “after the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefore cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.”

It added that if the criminal complaint is filed after the civil suit has already been instituted, “the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits.”

In 2004 both networks made their respective broadcasts and coverage of the arrival of de la Cruz on July 22, 2004.

ABS-CBN conducted a live audio-video coverage and broadcast the arrival of de la Cruz at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (Naia) and the subsequent news conference.

On account of their existing agreement, ABS-CBN’s news coverage was also carried by Reuters Television Service, on the condition that any footage coming from it would be considered by the latter under “embargo” against use but its other subscribers in the country.

However, being a subscriber of both Reuters and CNN, GMA Network received the live video feed of the coverage of said arrival that was beamed by Reuters from the Naia.

Immediately, GMA Network carried the Reuters feed in its flash news report simultaneously with its own live broadcast.

 GMA Network later explained that it did notice that what Reuters was airing were footage of ABS-CBN and that said live video was under embargo in favor of the latter.

ABS-CBN later accused its rival of violating intellectual-property rights over the said video footage.

GMA said defamatory statements in the said programs were hurled against it and some of its officers, reporters or broadcasters, prompting the network to file a complaint for libel in 2004 against ABS-CBN and its executives which was initially dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for lack of probable cause.

GMA Network appealed the resolution to the Department of Justice which was denied. The motion for reconsideration of the denial is still pending before the DOJ.

Subsequently, GMA Network filed the complaint for damages in November 2005 with the RTC in QC which was later dismissed by the court owing to prescription.

However, acting on the motion for reconsideration of GMA Network, the trial court reinstated the civil case for damages but suspended such, pending the disposition of the criminal case for libel.