Short answer. Yes. The definition in Article 353 speaks of an imputation tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person. A corporation is a juridical person, so it is within the words of the article and does not need to show that a particular officer was named.
What the law says
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Revised Penal Code, Article 353 — Definition Of Libel. Read the full provision →
The definition says so expressly
Article 353 defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. The phrase natural or juridical person settles the question. The drafters could have written simply "person" and left it to argument; instead they named both, which forecloses the objection that a company has no reputation the article protects.
The company still has to be the one identified
Being capable of being defamed is not the same as having been defamed. The imputation must be about the company — identifiable as referring to it, whether or not it is named in terms — and it must be of the kind the article describes: a crime, a vice or defect, or some act, omission, condition, status or circumstance. Criticism of a product, of an industry, or of an individual who happens to work there is not automatically an imputation against the entity, and that distinction does a great deal of work in practice.
The rest of the definition applies unchanged
Nothing about the offended party being a company softens the other elements. The imputation must be public, and it must be malicious — and malice is dealt with by a separate provision under which a defamatory imputation is presumed malicious even where it is true, unless good intention and justifiable motive are shown. So a business considering a complaint, and a person who wrote something about a business, are both looking at the same framework. Truth is not the end of the enquiry for either of them.
What is worth preserving immediately
The publication itself, captured in full with its date, its author and its visible reach, before it is edited or taken down. Note where it appeared and who could see it, since publicity is an element rather than a background fact. If the company is claiming harm, the material showing that harm — cancelled orders, terminated dealings, the correspondence in which the statement was raised — should be collected while its connection to the publication is still traceable. Take all of it to a lawyer promptly; time limits apply to defamation and they are short.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 353 — Definition Of Libel
- Revised Penal Code, Article 354 — Requirement For Publicity