Case Summary and Outcome

The Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber (Décima Quinta Sala Unitaria Civil) of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Nuevo León, México, held journalist Ximena Peredo Rodríguez liable for moral damages. According to the Court, she abused her right to freedom of expression by publishing statements that unlawfully damaged Mr. Montes’ honor and reputation. The case stemmed from two opinion columns published in the newspaper “El Norte” in 2018, which referred to anonymous allegations of various forms of gender-based violence—including sexual harassment and abuse of power in an academic environment—posted on a university blog against writer Felipe de Jesús Montes Espino Barros. The appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling that dismissed the claim, holding that the columns exceeded the bounds of protected value judgments and amounted to the unlawful imputation of unproven criminal conduct. The Court held that such accusations required an adequate factual basis and a level of journalistic diligence, and could not rely solely on allegations published on an anonymous blog, regardless of its public nature. According to the judgment, the absence of verification, coupled with inflammatory language intended to cause harm, constituted reckless disregard for the truth and violated the writer’s right to honor and presumption of innocence. Consequently, the appellate court awarded Montes Espino Barros compensation for moral damages, including psychological therapy costs.

---

Facts

Felipe de Jesús Montes Espino Barros is a writer, novelist, and former professor at the Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM)—a university. In 2017, Mr. Montes was anonymously accused by former students—through the university blog #AcosoenlaU—of various forms of gender-based violence, including sexual harassment, abuse of power in the academic environment, and sexual acts involving minors. None of the alleged victims ever filed a criminal complaint and instead resorted to an anonymous blog, given the alleged absence of safe and effective reporting channels. Although no criminal proceedings were opened, these allegations prompted an internal inquiry at ITESM, which ultimately resulted in Mr. Montes’ dismissal later that same year. Additionally, the precedent led to the adoption of a gender-violence protocol within the academic institution. 

In October 2018, Mr. Montes was included in the program of the Monterrey International Book Fair, organized by ITESM itself. When the invitation became public, several students objected to Mr. Montes’ participation. As a direct consequence, the ITESM decided to cancel his appearance at the International Book Fair. In that context, Ximena Peredo—a widely recognized journalist and columnist working for the newspaper “El Norte”—published two columns that referenced the anonymous accusations against Mr. Montes. On September 28, 2018, she published “Pueblo Fantasma” (Ghost town), a column analyzing responses to allegations of sexual harassment, using the case of Mr. Montes to anchor her opinion. 

On October 5, 2018, Ms. Peredo published “El Retorno de un Depredador” (The Return of a Predator) in the same newspaper. In this column, she reflected on the structural power exercised by certain university professors, the importance of public denunciation, and the need to create conditions for “possible justice” when institutional channels fail, while also questioning how society and educational institutions respond to allegations of gender-based violence. She cited several examples of what she viewed as instances of “possible justice,” including the case of Mr. Montes. Among other things, the column stated:

What I meant is that in the absence of reliable courts, public shaming works for some time—and surely dissuades criminal behavior in some—but it usually fades into oblivion and, therefore, can end up feeding impunity.

[…]

Almost a year after the first accusations in the “Acoso en la U” blog, and after being kept in a sort of freezer, Montes is gradually returning to the cultural scene, which indicates, on one hand, that he already feels ready to present himself as if nothing had happened and, on the other, that some surely think that the writer already had his deserved punishment, although he hasn’t even asked for forgiveness.

In this scenario, the rest of us have two possibilities: either we welcome him back and perpetuate impunity—we are also talking about pedophilia since it involves minors—or we accept the challenge of facing this matter as a community.

[…]

As today, the victims and the ITESM itself have given us a lesson in “possible justice,” in the absence of legal justice and even ideal justice.

Another example: in recent days the “Acoso en la U” collective sent a letter to the authorities of the ITESM claiming that they had included the writer as a presenter of a book in the program of the next Book Fair that the same ITESM administers.

[…]

This possible justice, however, is kicked, lynched in a gang, when sexual predators count on invitations from prestigious publishing houses, and when people are willing to applaud them.

But let’s note something, the problem is usually much greater when the victimizer’s profile matches that of a sympathetic person, who tells everyone what they want to hear and in exchange exercises some control.

[…]

Therefore, the issue is not only to assume a position in this case, but to depart from it. If public denunciations have stopped, it is not because the predators have fled; perhaps it is because of the fear instilled by seeing them return. [p.3 of the judgment of the Second Oral Civil Trial Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Nuevo León]

In 2022, Mr. Montes filed a civil liability lawsuit asking for moral damages against Ms. Peredo Rodríguez, alleging her columns caused him severe psychological, physical, and reputational damage. The plaintiff estimated the damages at 20 million Mexican pesos (approx. USD 995,000 in 2022). The lawsuit was grounded in Article 1807 of the Civil Code of the State of Nuevo León, which pertains to unlawful acts and moral damages, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.

On February 19, 2024, the Second Oral Civil Trial Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Nueva León (Juzgado Segundo de Juicio Civil Oral del Primer Distrito Judicial del Estado de Nuevo León) issued a judgment dismissing the claim. The judge began by recognizing the defendant’s status as a professional journalist and the essential democratic role of journalism. It further considered that the plaintiff was a public figure, given his literary work and former academic position. The judge then analyzed the two columns published in the newspaper “El Norte”. It held that opinion columns—although largely composed of value judgments—must rely on a minimally verified factual basis. 

On these grounds, the judge concluded that the column Ghost Town was neither defamatory nor libelous and was a legitimate exercise of freedom of opinion as it merely reported already public accusations and the absence of any criminal conviction. As for the column The Return of a Predator, the judge determined that it consisted predominantly of opinions protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression, and was supported by a sufficient factual basis and minimal diligence. Although the language employed by Ms. Peredo was forceful, it did not exceed the bounds of constitutional protection. 

Additionally, the judge emphasized the evident public interest in the information discussed in the columns, both because it concerned a public figure and, more importantly, because it related to allegations of sexual abuse of minors and violence against women. Likewise, the judge rejected the existence of actual malice or intent, noting that the key statements in the columns were expressed as value judgments grounded in public and verified information that contributed to public debate. 

Mr. Montes appealed this decision. He argued there was a misapplication of the actual malice standard, a violation of the presumption of innocence, a failure to apply the pro persona principle to weigh in favor of individual protection, a misapplication of the gender perspective principle, a distortion of the columns’ content, and an inadequate assessment of the evidence. The appeal was heard by the Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Nuevo León (Décima Quinta Sala Unitaria Civil de la Corte Superior de Justicia del Estado de Nuevo León). 

---

Decision Overview

On April 25, 2025, the Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber delivered its judgment. The central issue before the judge was whether Ms. Peredo had abused her freedom of expression by publishing statements that unlawfully damaged Mr. Montes’ honor and reputation, or whether her columns constituted protected opinion on a matter of public interest—sexual violence and harassment in academic environment—supported by sufficient factual basis and free of actual malice.

Mr. Montes contended that the first-instance judge had misapplied the doctrine of actual malice by treating the columns as mere value judgments when, in fact, they imputed unproven and false criminal conducts (harassment, sexual abuse, and pedophilia), despite the total absence of any criminal investigation, complaint, or institutional finding against him. He further argued that the first-instance judge had conducted a line-by-line fragmentation of the columns’ content in order to isolate each phrase from the overall defamatory message, particularly in The Return of a Predator, which he characterized as a deliberate personal attack designed to portray him as a “predator”, “harasser”, “sexual abuser,” and “pedophile”. He stressed the journalist’s reckless negligence in failing to conduct any independent verification and simply reproducing anonymous blog posts without ever offering him a right of reply. 

Ms. Peredo maintained that both columns were examples of protected journalistic opinion on a topic of heightened public interest, that they rested on facts that were already in the public domain, that the language used—although harsh—was proportionate criticism directed at a public figure, and that there was no evidence of actual malice. She also argued that ITESM had conducted an internal inquiry into the allegations against Mr. Montes, as a result of which he was dismissed from the institution.

The Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber began its analysis by establishing that speech that is predominantly opinion, but relies on factual assertions, requires a “sufficient factual anchor” and, at least, minimal journalistic diligence. It stressed that serious imputations of criminal conduct cannot rest exclusively on anonymous and unverified sources, notwithstanding that such information is already in the public domain. As for the first column, Ghost Town, the appellate court fully agreed with the trial judge that it contained no offensive expressions toward the plaintiff and constituted an impartial and legitimate commentary on publicly circulating accusations against him.

Nevertheless, the Judge adopted a divergent criterion regarding the second column, considering it constituted calumny and defamation. The Court held that, although the columnist referenced the anonymous #AcosoenlaU blog as her source, she directed her text personally and unequivocally at Mr. Montes, asserting as fact that he was a “predator” and “pedophile”, who enjoyed impunity for his acts of harassment and sexual abuse. The appellate court considered that these were not mere value judgments but affirmative imputations of criminal conduct that required objective substantiation beyond an anonymous blog. It explicitly stated that a journalist “cannot rely on mere allegations from a blog to assume that the purported victims are telling the truth and that the plaintiff is guilty,” and further held that the columnist had acted with actual malice by invoking pedophilia precisely “to shape an adverse perception of the plaintiff.” [p. 22]

The Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber further rejected the defendant’s contention that her statements were supported by the internal inquiry conducted by the ITESM, noting that virtually all of the evidence offered to establish the existence of such investigations was either inadmissible or lacked probative value. The Judge underscored that, even though gender violence is a matter of paramount public interest and the plaintiff could be considered a limited public figure—required to tolerate greater criticism—, such status did not license journalists to impute unproven crimes.  Consequently, the content of the second column was deemed a direct violation of the plaintiff’s rights to honor and reputation, as well as of the presumption of innocence.

Having established that the second publication constituted an illicit act, the appellate court then held that both damage and causation were proven through Mr. Montes’s psychological expert reports (dismissing the defendant’s counter-expert opinion as contradictory and unpersuasive), concluding that the column’s pedophilia reference had caused a medium-gravity affective injury requiring ongoing therapy. The Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber therefore revoked the first-instance judgment and declared the appeal founded. As a consequence, it held Ms. Peredo liable for moral damage and ordered her to pay the full cost of the psychological therapy sessions required for the plaintiff’s recovery, together with related transportation expenses.

---