Short answer. It can be. Article 357 of the Revised Penal Code punishes a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine who publishes facts connected with the private life of another that are offensive to that person's honour, virtue and reputation — even if published as part of reporting a judicial or administrative proceeding.
What the law says
who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned
Revised Penal Code, Article 357 — Publishing Private Life Facts. Read the full provision →
Why 'it came out in the hearing' is not a defence
This is the whole point of Article 357. A newspaper cannot justify printing intimate details about you merely because the details were mentioned in a case. The article expressly refuses that excuse — publication is still punishable even when made in connection with, or under the pretext that it is necessary to, the narration of a judicial or administrative proceeding. What matters is that the facts are connected with your private life and are offensive to your honour, virtue and reputation. Truth is not the answer either: unlike ordinary defamation, the offence here is not that the statement is false but that a private matter was exposed to the public.
Who can be held liable, and the penalty
The article names three roles — the reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine. Liability therefore follows the publishing chain, not just the byline. The penalty is arresto mayor, or a fine, or both. The fine range now printed in the article, forty thousand to two hundred thousand pesos, is the amount fixed by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions still print the 1930 figures, so a much smaller amount quoted on another site is almost certainly the superseded version rather than the law as it stands.
Posts, blogs and online news
Article 357 is drafted around print titles and the people who run them, so it does not obviously reach a private individual who simply posts about you. Online publication is dealt with differently. Where the material is defamatory, the offence is libel, and the cybercrime law provides a higher penalty when libel is committed through a computer system — so a Facebook post is not treated identically to a printed column. Screenshots showing the full post, the account, the date and the visible audience are worth capturing early, because online material is easily edited or taken down and a deleted page is much harder to prove than a printed page.
What to weigh before filing
A complaint of this kind puts the same private details before a court a second time, in a record that is itself public, and that is a real cost to think through before starting. Criminal offences of this type carry short prescriptive periods, so delay can quietly end the option. Keep the physical issue or a complete copy of the publication rather than a clipping, note the circulation date, and preserve any correspondence with the paper. A demand for correction or retraction is sometimes the faster route to the outcome you actually want. No result can be promised in advance — take advice on your own facts.