The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld an award of moral damages against a telegram company for failing to deliver a message informing family members in the US of a relative's death. The trial court had ordered the company to pay various family members amounts for compensatory and moral damages, plus attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The appellate court mostly affirmed but reduced some awards. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding the company liable for moral damages due to its gross negligence in breaching its obligation to transmit the telegram, which caused suffering to the family members. It modified some of the damage amounts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld an award of moral damages against a telegram company for failing to deliver a message informing family members in the US of a relative's death. The trial court had ordered the company to pay various family members amounts for compensatory and moral damages, plus attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The appellate court mostly affirmed but reduced some awards. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding the company liable for moral damages due to its gross negligence in breaching its obligation to transmit the telegram, which caused suffering to the family members. It modified some of the damage amounts.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld an award of moral damages against a telegram company for failing to deliver a message informing family members in the US of a relative's death. The trial court had ordered the company to pay various family members amounts for compensatory and moral damages, plus attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The appellate court mostly affirmed but reduced some awards. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding the company liable for moral damages due to its gross negligence in breaching its obligation to transmit the telegram, which caused suffering to the family members. It modified some of the damage amounts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld an award of moral damages against a telegram company for failing to deliver a message informing family members in the US of a relative's death. The trial court had ordered the company to pay various family members amounts for compensatory and moral damages, plus attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The appellate court mostly affirmed but reduced some awards. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding the company liable for moral damages due to its gross negligence in breaching its obligation to transmit the telegram, which caused suffering to the family members. It modified some of the damage amounts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, after trial,
Republic of the Philippines
ordered the defendant (now petitioner) to pay the SUPREME COURT plaintiffs (now private respondents) damages, as Manila follows, with interest at 6% per annum: SECOND DIVISION 1. Sofia C. Crouch, P31.92 and G.R. No. 73867 February 29, 1988 P16,000.00 as compensatory TELEFAST COMMUNICATIONS/PHILIPPINE damages and P20,000.00 as moral WIRELESS, INC., petitioner, damages. vs. 2. Ignacio Castro Sr., P20,000.00 as IGNACIO CASTRO, SR., SOFIA C. CROUCH, moral damages. IGNACIO CASTRO JR., AURORA CASTRO, 3. Ignacio Castro Jr., P20,000.00 as SALVADOR CASTRO, MARIO CASTRO, moral damages. CONRADO CASTRO, ESMERALDA C. FLORO, AGERICO CASTRO, ROLANDO CASTRO, 4. Aurora Castro, P10,000.00 moral VIRGILIO CASTRO AND GLORIA CASTRO, and damages. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE 5. Salvador Castro, P10,000.00 moral COURT, respondents. damages. 6. Mario Castro, P10,000.00 moral PADILLA, J.: damages. Petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of 7. Conrado Castro, P10,000 moral the Intermediate Appellate Court, dated 11 February damages. 1986, in AC-G.R. No. CV-70245, entitled "Ignacio 8. Esmeralda C. Floro, P20,000.00 Castro, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus moral damages. Telefast Communication/Philippine Wireless, Inc., Defendant-Appellant." 9. Agerico Castro, P10,000.00 moral damages. The facts of the case are as follows: 10. Rolando Castro, P10,000.00 moral On 2 November 1956, Consolacion Bravo-Castro damages. wife of plaintiff Ignacio Castro, Sr. and mother of the other plaintiffs, passed away in Lingayen, 11. Virgilio Castro, P10,000.00 moral Pangasinan. On the same day, her daughter Sofia C. damages. Crouch, who was then vacationing in the Philippines, 12. Gloria Castro, P10,000.00 moral addressed a telegram to plaintiff Ignacio Castro, Sr. damages. at 685 Wanda, Scottsburg, Indiana, U.S.A., 47170 announcing Consolacion's death. The telegram was Defendant is also ordered to pay P5,000.00 accepted by the defendant in its Dagupan office, for attorney's fees, exemplary damages in the amount transmission, after payment of the required fees or of P1,000.00 to each of the plaintiffs and costs. 2 charges. On appeal by petitioner, the Intermediate Appellate The telegram never reached its addressee. Court affirmed the trial court's decision but Consolacion was interred with only her daughter eliminated the award of P16,000.00 as Sofia in attendance. Neither the husband nor any of compensatory damages to Sofia C. Crouch and the the other children of the deceased, then all residing award of P1,000.00 to each of the private in the United States, returned for the burial. respondents as exemplary damages. The award of P20,000.00 as moral damages to each of Sofia C. When Sofia returned to the United States, she Crouch, Ignacio Castro, Jr. and Esmeralda C. Floro discovered that the wire she had caused the was also reduced to P120,000. 00 for each. 3 defendant to send, had not been received. She and the other plaintiffs thereupon brought action for Petitioner appeals from the judgment of the damages arising from defendant's breach of appellate court, contending that the award of moral contract. The case was filed in the Court of First damages should be eliminated as defendant's Instance of Pangasinan and docketed therein as negligent act was not motivated by "fraud, malice or Civil Case No. 15356. The only defense of the recklessness." defendant was that it was unable to transmit the In other words, under petitioner's theory, it can only telegram because of "technical and atmospheric be held liable for P 31.92, the fee or charges paid by factors beyond its control." 1 No evidence appears Sofia C. Crouch for the telegram that was never sent on record that defendant ever made any attempt to to the addressee thereof. advise the plaintiff Sofia C. Crouch as to why it could not transmit the telegram. Petitioner's contention is without merit. Art. 1170 of the Civil Code provides that "those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any amount of P1,000.00 for each of the private manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for respondents, as a warning to all telegram damages." Art. 2176 also provides that "whoever by companies to observe due diligence in transmitting act or omission causes damage to another, there the messages of their customers. being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision damage done." appealed from is modified so that petitioner is held In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent liable to private respondents in the following Sofia C. Crouch entered into a contract whereby, for amounts: a fee, petitioner undertook to send said private (1) P10,000.00 as moral damages, to respondent's message overseas by telegram. This, each of private respondents; petitioner did not do, despite performance by said private respondent of her obligation by paying the (2) P1,000.00 as exemplary damages, required charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of to each of private respondents; contravening its obligation to said private (3) P16,000.00 as compensatory respondent and is thus liable for damages. damages, to private respondent Sofia This liability is not limited to actual or quantified C. Crouch; damages. To sustain petitioner's contrary position in (4) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and this regard would result in an inequitous situation where petitioner will only be held liable for the (5) Costs of suit. actual cost of a telegram fixed thirty (30) years ago. SO ORDERED. We find Art. 2217 of the Civil Code applicable to the Yap (Chairman), Paras and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. case at bar. It states: "Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious Separate Opinions anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring. moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. [I] concur.In addition to compensatory and Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral exemplary damages, moral damages are damages may be recovered if they are the recoverable in actions for breach of contract, as in proximate results of the defendant's wrongful act or this case, where the breach has been wanton and omission." (Emphasis supplied). reckless, tantamount to bad faith. Here, petitioner's act or omission, which amounted Separate Opinions to gross negligence, was precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents had to undergo. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring. As the appellate court properly observed: [I] concur.In addition to compensatory and exemplary damages, moral damages are [Who] can seriously dispute the recoverable in actions for breach of contract, as in shock, the mental anguish and the this case, where the breach has been wanton and sorrow that the overseas children reckless, tantamount to bad faith. must have suffered upon learning of the death of their mother after she Footnotes had already been interred, without * Penned by Justice Serafin E. being given the opportunity to even Camilon, with the concurrence of make a choice on whether they Justices Crisolito Pascual, Jose C. wanted to pay her their last respects? Campos, Jr. and Desiderio P. Jurado. There is no doubt that these emotional sufferings were 1 Rollo at 8. proximately caused by appellant's 2 Rollo at 9-10. omission and substantive law provides for the justification for the 3 Rollo at 14, award of moral damages. 4 4 Rollo at 13. We also sustain the trial court's award of P16,000.00 as compensatory damages to Sofia C. Crouch representing the expenses she incurred when she came to the Philippines from the United States to testify before the trial court. Had petitioner not been remiss in performing its obligation, there would have been no need for this suit or for Mrs. Crouch's testimony. The award of exemplary damages by the trial court is likewise justified and, therefore, sustained in the
Serafin Modina, Petitioner vs. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Hontarciego, Paul Figueroa, Teodoro Hipalla and Ramon Chiang, Merlinda Chiang, Respondents.