Cease-and-Desist Letters for Defamation in the Philippines — Everything You Need to Know

1. What a Cease-and-Desist (C&D) Letter Is

A C&D letter is a private, pre-litigation demand sent by (or for) an injured party telling the addressee to stop (“cease”) and not repeat (“desist”) a harmful act—in this context, the publication of defamatory statements. It is not a court order: the writer cannot jail or fine the recipient merely by sending it. Its power lies in (a) warning of forthcoming legal action and (b) creating a paper trail that can later prove malice, actual notice, and failure to mitigate.

2. Defamation under Philippine Law

Concept	Sources	Key Points
Freedom of Speech vs. Reputation	Art. III §4, 1987 Constitution	Expression is protected but not absolute—defamatory speech may be punished.
Criminal Libel	Revised Penal Code (RPC) arts. 353-362, as amended by R.A. 10951 (2017)	Elements: (1) defamatory imputation, (2) malice, (3) publication, (4) victim identifiable. Penalty after R.A. 10951: prisión correccional in its minimum-medium period (6 months + 1 day – 4 years + 2 months) or a fine.
Slander / Slander by Deed	RPC arts. 358-359	Spoken defamation (slander) or acts (slander by deed).
Cyber-Libel	R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) & Disini v. DOJ (G.R. 203335, 2014)	Same elements as libel; prisión mayor (6 years + 1 day–12 years) because of the one-degree-higher rule. Venue may be where the offended party resides.
Civil Action	Civil Code arts. 19, 20, 26, 33; Art. 2176 (quasi-delict)	Independent civil action for moral, actual, exemplary damages (Borjal v. CA, G.R. 126466, 14 Jan 1999). Prescriptive period: 4 years (Art. 1146).

Malice in law is presumed once the four elements exist, but public figures must additionally prove malice in fact (actual malice)—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth (Borjal; Vasquez v. CA).

3. Why Send a C&D Letter?

Prompt Retraction / Apology. Prevents further spread, limits damage.
Evidence of Notice. Strengthens proof of malice and bad faith if suit follows.
Chance to Settle. Civil suits for damages and criminal actions are costly and slow—many settle after a demand.
Reputation Management. Demonstrates vigilance; may satisfy regulators, business partners, or investors.

4. Timing & Prescription

Cause of Action	Prescriptive Period	When Clock Starts
Criminal libel / slander	1 year (Art. 90 RPC)	Date of first publication or last republication.
Cyber-libel	15 years (Art. 90 RPC + Disini)	Date of posting (each unique URL may be a new offense).
Civil tort/damages	4 years	Date plaintiff learns of the publication and the author.

Sending a C&D letter does not suspend prescription, so act promptly.

5. Preconditions Before Drafting

Gather Proof
- Full text, screenshots, recordings, cached copies, timestamps.
- Proof of reach (views, shares), and resulting harm (lost contracts, anxiety, medical bills).
Identify Defendant(s)
- Author, editor, publisher, owner of website, social-media page admin.
- For anonymous users, preserve IP logs or subpoena platform later.
Check Privilege & Fair Comment
- Statements made in official proceedings (absolute privilege) or fair, honest opinions on public matters (qualified privilege) may be protected—don’t threaten frivolously (risk of counter-suits for abuse of rights).

6. Anatomy of a Philippine C&D Letter for Defamation

Letterhead & Counsel Details – shows seriousness.
Introduction & Parties – identify writer, client, and addressee.
Statement of Facts – concise chronology: what was said, when, where, by whom. Attach annexes (screenshots, URLs).
Legal Basis – cite defamation provisions (RPC arts. 353 ff.; R.A. 10175; Civil Code arts. 19, 26, 32, 33).
Demands
- Immediate cessation of further defamatory statements.
- Retraction in the same forum/medium, with equal prominence.
- Written public apology within a fixed period (commonly 48-72 hours).
- Take-down of online posts/cached content (notify Google, Meta, X).
- Indemnification of actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees (optional at this stage).
Compliance Window – clearly state deadline (e.g., “on or before 00:00 H, 15 August 2025”).
Consequences of Non-Compliance – intent to file (a) criminal complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, (b) independent civil action for damages in the Regional Trial Court, and/or (c) application for preliminary injunction to stop continued publication.*
Document Preservation Notice – tell addressee not to delete evidence (emails, chat logs, analytics).
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Clause – invite settlement conference or mediation (Philippine Mediation Center; barangay Katarungang Pambarangay if parties in same barangay).
No-Malice Disclaimer – “This demand is made in good faith to protect legal rights.”
Signature – counsel or self-represented complainant; include IBP, PTR, MCLE numbers (if by counsel). *Note: Prior restraint (a ban on future speech) is disfavored; courts grant injunctive relief only in exceptional cases where there is a clear and present danger to a state interest, or repeated, patently defamatory republications.

7. Service & Proof

Mode	Best Practice	Proof of Service
Personal delivery	Have addressee sign “Received” on duplicate original.	Signed copy or affidavit of server.
Registered mail w/ return card	Use PhilPost or reputable courier.	Registry receipt + returned green card.
Private courier	LBC, DHL.	Waybill & acknowledgment.
Email / Social Media DM	Acceptable for cyber-libel suspects if identity clear.	Screenshot + email headers + affidavit of service.

8. Typical Outcomes

Full Compliance – Retraction & apology; often coupled with settlement.
Partial Compliance – Take-down but no apology.
Negotiation – Counter-proposal (e.g., “clarification” article).
Silence / Refusal – Proceed to filing; the letter and courier receipt become Annex “A” of the complaint or information.
Counter-blast – Addressee publishes letter or threatens SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) or countersuit for harassment. Ensure your demands are reasonable to avoid exposure under Civil Code art. 19 (abuse of rights).

9. Going to Court After a C&D

Track	Venue	Standard of Proof	Reliefs
Criminal libel / cyber-libel	Office of the Prosecutor → RTC (since penalties > 6 yrs).	Beyond reasonable doubt.	Imprisonment + fine + damages (optional).
Civil action (Art. 33)	RTC if damages claim > ₱300k (₱400k in Metro Manila), else MTC.	Preponderance of evidence.	Moral, actual, exemplary damages; attorney’s fees; permanent injunction.
Independent quasi-delict (Art. 2176)	Same.	Same.	Same.

Costs & Timeframe: 2-5 years first-level court; appeals may extend 5-10 years. Thus, well-drafted C&D letters often lead to settlement.

10. Defenses & Safe Harbors

Defense	Details
Truth	Complete defense if statement relates to a matter of public interest (RPC art. 361).
Qualified privilege	Fair and true report of official proceeding; fair comment on public figures; mutual interest communication (e.g., employer references).
Absolute privilege	Statements by legislators in Congress; pleadings filed in court provided relevant to issues.
Good-faith opinion	Pure comment, clearly stated as opinion and grounded on true facts.
Consent	Plaintiff consented to publication.

A sender should anticipate these defenses and address them in the C&D (e.g., pointing out factual falsities, absence of privilege).

11. If You Receive a C&D Letter

Stay Calm; Don’t Retaliate Online.
Check Authenticity. Law-office letterhead? IBP & MCLE numbers?
Preserve Evidence. Do not delete posts until counsel advises (spoliation may backfire).
Consult Counsel Quickly. Evaluate merit; raise truth or privilege defenses; draft response.
Respond or Ignore?
- Respond politely when confident in defenses—offer clarifications.
- Ignore only if clearly baseless, but weigh risk of default judgment.
Insurance Notice. Some media companies carry Errors & Omissions (E&O) cover; notify insurer within policy period.

12. Ethical & Regulatory Angles

Lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility (2023). Demand letters must be truthful, not used to threaten unfounded charges (§7 Canon 1).
SEC / BSP Circulars. If sender is a corporation subject to disclosure rules, a libel claim can be material litigation; improper threat may violate disclosure duties.
Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173). Sharing private data in a defamatory post may also be a privacy breach; complainant can pursue parallel remedies with NPC.

13. Key Supreme Court Decisions to Cite

Case	G.R. No.	Take-away
Borjal v. Court of Appeals	126466 (14 Jan 1999)	Adopted actual malice standard for public figures.
Disini v. DOJ	203335 (11 Feb 2014)	Upheld cyber-libel; declared prescriptive period 15 years.
Tulfo v. People	233193 (5 Apr 2022)	Columnist jailed for libel; re-affirmed presumption of malice; apology did not erase liability.
Alfonso v. GMA Network	164785 (25 Jan 2021)	Broadcaster’s report of official proceeding privileged.
Cruz-Hoyos v. People	233169 (24 Mar 2020)	Sharing defamatory Facebook post is separate publication.

14. Practical Drafting Tips

Keep it Short (2-3 pages)—courts dislike verbose, vitriolic demands.
Use Neutral Language. Avoid further defamation.
Cite Specific URLs / Broadcast Air-time. Vagueness undermines credibility.
Set Realistic Deadlines. 48–72 hours for online posts; 5-7 days for print retractions.
Avoid Unlawful Threats. Never threaten violence or extrajudicial measures.
Attach Proposed Retraction Text to speed compliance.

15. Sample One-Paragraph Demand (for guidance only)

“Within 72 hours from receipt of this letter, you are hereby directed to (a) permanently delete your Facebook post dated 10 July 2025 at 14:35 H captioned ‘Company X defrauds OFWs’; (b) publish the attached Retraction and Apology for a continuous period of seven (7) days on your Facebook page and all platforms where the offending post appeared; and (c) refrain from repeating the aforesaid defamatory allegations. Failure to comply will leave our client no recourse but to initiate criminal proceedings for libel under Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 10951, and to file an independent civil action for damages under Articles 19, 20, and 33 of the Civil Code, without further notice.”

16. Conclusion

A Philippine cease-and-desist letter for defamation is a strategic first strike that can halt reputational harm without immediate litigation. Drafted knowledgeably—grounded on constitutional limits, the Revised Penal Code, the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and pertinent jurisprudence—it signals seriousness, preserves evidence, and often induces retraction or settlement. Whether you are protecting your good name or defending free expression, understanding the elements, procedures, and tactical nuances of this simple but potent document is indispensable.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for advice on specific circumstances.