Darryl Yap’s Camp Seeks Court-Issued Gag Order Against Vic Sotto
Filmmaker Darryl Yap, through his legal counsel, Fortun and Santos Law Offices, has filed a motion with the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 205 seeking a gag order against veteran actor Vic Sotto’s camp. This comes as Darryl Yap prepares to respond to the petition within five days of receipt.
A gag order, issued by courts, prohibits parties, including their legal representatives, from publicly discussing or disclosing information about an ongoing case. This includes speaking to the media or posting about the matter online.
Darryl Yap’s legal team argued that since the filmmaker’s verified return involves an unreleased movie, Sotto and anyone acting on his behalf should be restrained from disclosing its contents to the public.
“Given that the verified return pertains to an unreleased film by a prominent director, any disclosure would violate the Respondent’s freedom of expression and cause grave and irreparable damage to the Respondent’s artistic license and the film’s outcome,” the motion stated.
Vic Sotto’s Cyber Libel Complaint
Sotto filed a complaint on Thursday against Yap, citing 19 counts of cyber libel and demanding damages amounting to ₱35 million. The complaint centers on alleged “malicious and defamatory statements” made in the first teaser of Yap’s film, The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, which was posted on January 1 and quickly went viral.
The teaser reportedly mentioned Sotto and linked him to Pepsi Paloma, a star in the late 1980s whose controversial death remains a sensitive topic.
Darryl Yap’s legal counsel emphasized that the case involves high-profile personalities and has already garnered significant media attention, making a gag order crucial to uphold the “sub-judice rule,” which restricts public commentary on ongoing legal cases.
Court Yet to Issue a Takedown Order
The Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205 has so far only issued a Writ of Habeas Data, requiring Darryl Yap to make a verified return regarding the film. However, this does not yet mandate the removal of any related materials.
The decision on whether the trailer and promotional materials must be deleted will hinge on a summary hearing scheduled for January 15 at 8:30 a.m.
Sotto’s lawyer, Atty. Enrique dela Cruz, argued that the Writ of Habeas Data implies the need to take down the trailer, while Darryl Yap’s counsel, Atty. Raymond Fortun, maintained that no such order has been issued and that Yap is only required to make a verified return.
Creative License vs. Libel
Darryl Yap has defended the film’s narrative, claiming it is rooted in truth. “In the end, truth is the defense to all questions,” Yap wrote in a Facebook post, expressing gratitude to his legal team, including Atty. Raymond Fortun and his son, Atty. Raymond Wilhelm Fortun.
However, legal experts argue that even truthful statements can be deemed libelous if delivered with malice.
“Under our laws and court decisions, even truthful statements are not a defense against libel or cyber libel if made with malice or intent to harm another’s reputation,” Atty. Cecilio Duka, Assistant Dean of the University of Makati College of Law, said in an interview.
Atty. Dela Cruz echoed this sentiment, stating that a filmmaker’s creative license cannot justify libelous remarks.
“Freedom of expression and creative license do not protect libelous statements. Good intentions are not a defense. While everyone has the right to create films and express ideas, the law prohibits making defamatory statements,” Dela Cruz emphasized.
As the legal battle unfolds, the court’s decisions on the gag order and trailer takedown will set a significant precedent in balancing creative expression with legal boundaries.
Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available information and current discussions. The details concerning the Pepsi Paloma controversy are part of historical records and ongoing public discourse. As new insights or perspectives emerge, the narrative may evolve. Readers are encouraged to engage with the topic thoughtfully and sensitively.
Chika Tayo does not endorse or take sides regarding the views, claims, or actions referenced in this content. It is essential to recognize that public figures, including those involved, have rights to privacy and fair representation. As responsible consumers of online information, let us strive to foster a culture of respect, mindful engagement, and accountability. Spreading unverified or harmful content can have lasting consequences—let dignity and empathy guide our conversations.
