RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VERCHEZ

FACTS:

Editha Verchez is sick and confined at a hospital in Sorsogon. Because of this, her daughter, Grace, engaged the service of RCPI to send a telegram to Zenaida, her sister in Quezon city. Its content: “Send Check Money Mommy Hospital” (translate: pahingi pera si nanay may sakit)

3 days later, no response yet from Zenaida. Because of this, Grace sent another letter, this time thru a different delivery service. Zenaida received it and immediately went to Sorsogon. It turns out, she was not able to receive any telegram. It was only 25 days later when the telegram arrived.

A year later, Editha Died. The Verchez family filed a complaint for damages. RTC and CA ruled in favor of Verchez. Moral damages were awarded.Petitioner’s Contention: (RCPI)

1.) The delay in the transmission was due to fortuitous events. The courier was not able to locate the residence. Further, there was also radio interference which prevented the message from being transmitted immediately.

2.) There is no basis for moral damages because the delay in transmitting telegram was not the proximate cause of Editha’s death.

3.) Editha signed the “Telegram Transmission Form” containing a “limited liability clause.” Therefore, it is not liable.

ISSUE(S)/ HELD:

1.) Was there liability? YES

2.) Was there basis for Moral Damages? YES

3.) Was the Telegram Transmission Form a void contract of adhesion? YES

RATIO:

1.) There is liability even if there is no causal connection between the delay of telegram and the death. Liability is based on Culpa Contractual as to Grace; Quasi-Delict as to the other family members.

a.) Culpa Contractual (art. 1170)

Mere breach of obligation gives rise to a presumption of fault or negligence. Presumption can be rebutted if there is due diligence or fortuitous event.

In this case, there is no fortuitous event. It must be free from any human factor.

Even if there is a fortuitous event, RCPI is still negligent. They should have notified Grace of the non-transmission of the telegram.

Therefore, RCPI is liable to GRACE for damages, due to breach of contract.

b.) Quasi-Delict (art. 2176)

There was no pre-existing contractual relation between RCPI and the other family members. RCPI’s delay and non-notice of its delay caused damage to the family. Therefore, it is liable for a quasi-delict.

2.) There is basis for Moral Damages. These are the requisites for moral damages: (1) suffering suffered (2) culpable act or omission (3) such acts were proximate cause of damages (4) case is predicated on instances in Art. 2219 and Art. 2220.

In this case, 1,2, and 3 are present.

How about 4th requisite? YES.

a.) Damage under art. 2220 (regarding breach of contracts)

Moral damages in breach of contract may be awarded when there is BAD FAITH.

In this case, after RCPI’s first attempt to deliver the telegram failed, it did not inform Grace of the non-delivery. It waited for another 12 days to try delivering it again. When the 2nd attempt failed, it again waited for another 12 days without informing Grace of the non-delivery.

This is GROSS NEGLIGENCE and thus AMOUNTS TO BAD FAITH. Therefore, moral damages are proper.

b.) Damage under art. 2219 (for quasi-delict)

Moral damages are proper in cases analogous to acts referred to in Article 26 of the Civil Code