Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Verchez

A telecommunications company that fails to deliver a telegram promptly due to its own negligence is liable for damages; its liability is based on culpa contractual to the sender and quasi-delict to the intended recipient and other affected family members. Gross negligence in the performance of its contractual obligation, such as an inordinate delay without notifying the sender, amounts to bad faith and justifies the award of moral damages.

On January 21, 1991, Editha Hebron Verchez was confined at the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital. Her daughter, Grace Verchez-Infante, sent an urgent telegram through RCPI to her sister, Zenaida Verchez-Catibog, in Quezon City, with the message "Send check money Mommy hospital." The purpose was to secure immediate financial aid for their mother's medical needs. The failure to receive a timely response caused distress and confusion within the family, leading them to believe Zenaida was ignoring their plea for help.

• On January 21, 1991, Grace Verchez-Infante engaged RCPI's services in Sorsogon to send a telegram to her sister Zenaida in Quezon City, requesting money for their hospitalized mother, Editha.
• After three days without a response, Grace sent a letter via JRS Delivery Service, reprimanding Zenaida for not providing financial aid.
• Upon receiving the letter, Zenaida and her husband immediately traveled to Sorsogon on January 26, 1991, and denied having received any telegram.
• The telegram was finally delivered to Zenaida on February 15, 1991, a full 25 days after it was sent.
• RCPI's messenger explained that a previous messenger could not locate the address, so the telegram was resent on February 2, 1991, and delivered by a second messenger on February 15.
• In a formal reply to the family's complaint, RCPI's management attributed the initial transmission failure to "radio noise and interferences" which were "beyond the control and foresight of RCPI."
• Editha Verchez passed away on April 17, 1992.
• On September 8, 1993, Editha's husband, daughters, and their spouses filed a complaint for damages against RCPI, alleging the delay contributed to Editha's early demise and caused them mental anguish.

• RCPI argued that any delay in sending the telegram was due to force majeure, specifically radio noise and interferences that affected transmission.
• The petitioner claimed that except for Grace, the other plaintiffs had no privity of contract with RCPI.
• RCPI invoked a clause in the Telegram Transmission Form that allegedly absolved it from liability for damages beyond the refund of the telegram fee.
• The petitioner asserted that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
• RCPI contended that the respondents failed to prove a causal connection between the delay in the telegram's delivery and Editha's death.
• The petitioner argued that the award of moral damages was improper because the family's actions, such as the husband not immediately accompanying his wife to Manila, showed the situation was not critical.
• RCPI insisted that the Telegram Transmission Form was not a contract of adhesion because its stipulations were written in bold letters and easily visible.

• The Verchez family alleged that the 25-day delay in the delivery of the urgent telegram constituted gross negligence on the part of RCPI.
• They claimed that this delay contributed to the early demise of Editha Verchez, causing them damage and prejudice.
• The respondents asserted that the delay and lack of communication from RCPI caused them mental anguish, disturbed their filial tranquility, and led them to blame each other for failing to respond to an emergency.
• They prayed for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, due to RCPI's tortious actions and breach of contract.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether RCPI is liable for damages due to its failure to deliver the telegram within a reasonable time.
  • Whether the award of moral damages to the respondents is proper.
  • Whether the stipulation in the Telegram Transmission Form limiting RCPI's liability is valid and binding.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • Yes, RCPI is liable for damages. The court found RCPI liable for breach of contract (culpa contractual) with respect to Grace (the sender) and for quasi-delict with respect to her co-respondents. The mere proof of the contract and RCPI's failure to comply created a prima facie case of negligence. RCPI's defense of force majeure was rejected because it failed to exercise due diligence; even if technical issues occurred, its failure to inform the sender of the non-delivery constituted negligence.
  • Yes, the award of moral damages is proper. The court ruled that RCPI's "nonchalance" in performing its urgent obligation, such as waiting 12 days between delivery attempts without notifying the sender, constituted gross negligence amounting to bad faith. This justifies moral damages for breach of contract under Article 2220. Furthermore, RCPI's negligence disturbed the family's peace of mind and filial relations, an act analogous to those covered by Article 26 of the Civil Code, making moral damages awardable for quasi-delict under Article 2219.
  • No, the limited liability clause is not valid. The Court affirmed the appellate court's finding that the Telegram Transmission Form is a contract of adhesion. While not all such contracts are void, this one was deemed unenforceable because the weaker party (Grace) was deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing regarding a crucial public utility service, making the clause subversive of public policy.

• Culpa Contractual (Breach of Contract) — This doctrine holds that liability arises from a breach of a pre-existing obligation created by a contract. The Court applied this by stating that the mere proof of the contract between Grace and RCPI and the latter's failure to perform its obligation (the 25-day delay) justified a right of relief for Grace. RCPI failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that arose from this breach.
• Quasi-Delict (Tort) — This doctrine, based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code, imposes an obligation to pay for damages caused by an act or omission involving fault or negligence, where there is no pre-existing contractual relation. The Court held RCPI liable on this basis to the other family members (who were not parties to the contract) for the emotional distress and disturbance to their family relations caused by RCPI's negligence.
• Fortuitous Event (Force Majeure) — This principle, under Article 1174, exempts a person from liability for an event that could not be foreseen or, though foreseen, was inevitable. The Court rejected this defense, ruling that for it to prosper, there must be no human intervention or concurrent negligence. RCPI's failure to take steps to remedy the situation, such as notifying the sender of non-delivery, constituted negligence that "humanized" the event and removed it from the rules applicable to acts of God.
• Contract of Adhesion — This refers to a contract prepared by one party and imposed on the other, who has no opportunity to negotiate its terms and can only "adhere" to it by signing. The Court defined the Telegram Transmission Form as such a contract. It ruled that while not inherently void, its liability-limiting clause was unenforceable in this case because it was imposed by a dominant bargaining party (a public utility) on a weaker party, effectively depriving her of the chance to bargain on equal footing.
• Vicarious Liability of Employers — Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The Court noted that RCPI's liability could have been avoided if it had proven that it observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, which it failed to do.

• "People depend on telecommunications companies in times of deep emotional stress or pressing financial needs. Knowing that messages about the illnesses or deaths of loved ones, births or marriages in a family, important business transactions, and notices of conferences or meetings as in this case, are coursed through the petitioner and similar corporations, it is incumbent upon them to exercise a greater amount of care and concern than that shown in this case. Every reasonable effort to inform senders of the non-delivery of messages should be undertaken."

• FGU Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation — Cited to explain the principle of culpa contractual, where the mere proof of a contract's existence and its non-compliance justifies, prima facie, a right to relief for the injured party.
• Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Rodriguez — Referenced as a controlling precedent involving the same petitioner, establishing that a telegraph company must exercise due diligence and should provide a system to notify senders in cases of undelivered messages, as telegrams are usually more urgent than mail.
• Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals — Cited to provide the legal definition of a contract of adhesion as one where one party imposes a ready-made form of contract that the other party cannot modify.
• Mindex Resources Development v. Morillo — Used to explain the requirements for a fortuitous event to be a valid defense, emphasizing that there must be an exclusion of human intervention from the cause of the injury or loss.

• Civil Code, Article 1170 — Referenced as the basis for liability for damages for those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay.
• Civil Code, Article 1174 — Cited to define a fortuitous event and the conditions under which a person is not responsible for it.
• Civil Code, Article 2176 — Applied as the legal basis for RCPI's liability for quasi-delict to the family members who were not parties to the contract.
• Civil Code, Article 2180 — Cited to establish the vicarious liability of employers for the negligent acts of their employees, and the defense of exercising the diligence of a good father of a family.
• Civil Code, Article 2219(10) — Used to justify the award of moral damages in cases of quasi-delict, specifically for acts referred to in Article 26.
• Civil Code, Article 2220 — Applied to justify the award of moral damages in a breach of contract where the defendant, RCPI, was found to have acted in bad faith through its gross negligence.
• Civil Code, Article 26 — Referenced to show that RCPI's negligence, which meddled with and disturbed the family relations and peace of mind of the respondents, is an act for which damages can be awarded.