(8) G.R. No.

79578 March 13, 1991

FACTS:
Sps. Minerva Timan and Flores Timan sent a telegram of condolence to their cousins, Mr. and Mrs. Hilario Midoranda,
at Trinidad, Calbayog City, through Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) at Cubao, Quezon City,
to convey their deepest sympathy for the recent death of the mother-in-law of Hilario Midoranda4 to wit:

MR. & MRS. HILARIO MIDORANDA

MAY GOD GIVE YOU COURAGE AND STRENGTH TO BEAR YOUR LOSS. OUR DEEPEST SYMPATHY
TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.

MINER & FLORY

The condolence telegram was correctly transmitted as far as the written text was concerned. However, the condolence
message as communicated and delivered to the addressees was typewritten on a "Happy Birthday" card and placed
inside a "Christmasgram" envelope. Believing that the transmittal to the addressees of the aforesaid telegram in that
non such manner was done intentionally and with gross breach of contract resulting to ridicule, contempt, and
humiliation of the Sps. Timan and the addressees, including their friends and relatives, the Sps. Timan demanded an
explanation.

Unsatisfied with RCPI's explanations in its letters, the Timans filed a complaint for damages. The parties stipulated
at the pre-trial that the issue to be resolved by the trial court was: WON the act of delivering the condolence message
in a Happy Birthday" card with a "Christmasgram" envelope constitutes a breach of contract on the part of the
defendant. If in the affirmative, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages.

RTC: rendered judgment in favor of the respondents Timans

ISSUES:
1) WON CA erred in condemning RCPI to pay actual and compensatory damages in the amount of P30,848.05.
2) WON CA erred in condemning RCPI to pay moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00.
3) WON CA erred in condemning RCPI to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P5,000.00.
4) WON CA erred in condemning RCPI to pay attorneys fees in the amount of P5,000.00 plus costs of suit.

RULING:
RCPI, is engaged in a business affected with public interest, as such, it is bound to exercise that degree of diligence
expected of it in the performance of its obligations.—
- We fully agree with the appellate court’s endorsement of the trial court’s conclusion that RCPI, a corporation
dealing in telecommunications and offering its services to the public, is engaged in a business affected with public
interest. As such, it is bound to exercise that degree of diligence expected of it in the performance of its obligation.

One of RCPI's main arguments is that it still correctly transmitted the text of the telegram and was received by the
addressees on time despite the fact that there was "error" in the social form and envelope used.
- RCPI asserts that there was no showing that it has any motive to cause harm or damage on private respondents –
WE DON’T AGREE.

In a distinctly similar case, and oddly also involving the herein petitioner as the same culprit, we held:
- Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting messages. Everytime a
person transmits a message through the facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. Upon receipt of the
rate or fee fixed, the petitioner undertakes to transmit the message accurately . . . As a corporation, the petitioner
can act only through its employees. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are
the acts of the petitioner. To hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit
 of petitioner's business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and
adequate remedy.13

Now, in the present case, it is self-evident that a telegram of condolence is intended and meant to convey a message
of sorrow and sympathy.
- Precisely, it is denominated "telegram of condolence" because it tenders sympathy and offers to share another's
grief.
- It seems out of this world, therefore, to place that message of condolence in a birthday card and deliver the same
in a Christmas envelope for such acts of carelessness and incompetence not only render violence to good taste
and common sense, they depict a bizarre presentation of the sender's feelings.
- They ridicule the deceased's loved ones and destroy the atmosphere of grief and respect for the departed.

Anyone who avails of the facilities of a telegram company like RCPI can choose to send his message in the ordinary
form or in a social form.
- In the ordinary form, the text of the message is typed on plain newsprint paper.
- On the other hand, a social telegram is placed in a special form with the proper decorations and embellishments
to suit the occasion and the message and delivered in an envelope matching the purpose of the occasion and the
words and intent of the message. The sender pays a higher amount for the social telegram than for one in the
ordinary form.

It is clear, therefore, that when RCPI typed Sps. Timan’s message of condolence in a birthday card and delivered the
same in a colorful Christmasgram envelope, it committed a breach of contract as well as gross negligence.
- Its excuse that it had run out of social condolence cards and envelopes is flimsy and unacceptable.
- It could not have been faulted had it delivered the message in the ordinary form and reimbursed the difference in
the cost to the private respondents.
- But by transmitting it unfittingly—through other special forms clearly, albeit outwardly, portraying the opposite
feelings of joy and happiness and thanksgiving—RCPI only exacerbated the sorrowful situation of the addressees
and the senders.
- It bears stress that this botchery exposed not only RCPI’s gross negligence but also its callousness and disregard
for the sentiments of its clientele, which tantamount to wanton misconduct, for which it must be held liable for
damages.

It is not surprising that when the Timans' telegraphic message reached their cousin, it became the joke of the
Midorandas' friends, relatives, and associates who thought, and rightly so, that the unpardonable mix-up was a
mockery of the death of the mother-in-law of the senders' cousin.
- Thus it was not unexpected that because of this unusual incident, which caused much embarrassment and distress
to respondent Minerva Timan, he suffered nervousness and hypertension resulting in his confinement for three
days starting from April 4, 1983 at the Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City.

RCPI argues that "a court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures or guess work as to the fact and amount of damages,
but must depend on the actual proof that damages had been suffered and evidence of the actual amount.
- In other words, RCPI insists that there is no causal relation of the illness suffered by Mr. Timan with the foul-up
caused by the petitioner. But that is a question of fact.
- The findings of fact of the trial court and the respondent court concur in favor of the private respondents. We are
bound by such findings—that is the general rule well-established by a long line of cases. Nothing has been shown
to convince us to justify the relaxation of this rule in the petitioner's favor. On the contrary, these factual findings
are supported by substantial evidence on record.

Petitioner RCPI is liable for moral and exemplary damages because of its gross negligence or carelessness in
transmitting a condolence message expressing sadness and sorrow in a “Happy Birthday” card and placed inside a
“Christmasgram” envelope.—
- Anent the award of moral and exemplary damages assigned as errors, the findings of the respondent court are
persuasive.
- When plaintiffs placed an order for transmission of their social condolence telegram, RCPI did not inform the
Sps. Timan of the exhaustion of such social condolence forms.
- RCPI accepted through its authorized agent or agency the order and received the corresponding compensation
therefor.
- RCPI did not comply with its contract as intended by the parties and instead of transmitting the condolence
message in an ordinary form, in accordance with its guidelines, placed the condolence message expressing
sadness and sorrow in forms conveying joy and happiness.
- Under the circumstances, We cannot accept the RCPI’s plea of good faith predicated on such exhaustion of social
condolence forms.
- Gross negligence or carelessness can be attributed to RCPI in not supplying its various stations with such
sufficient and adequate social condolence forms when it held out to the public sometime in January 1983, the
availability of such social condolence forms and accepted for a fee the transmission of messages on said
forms.
- Knowing that there are no such forms as testified to by its Material Control Manager Mateo Atienza, and
entering into a contract for the transmission of messages in such forms, defendant-appellant committed acts
of bad faith, fraud or malice.

RCPI gross carelessness or negligence constitute wanton misconduct, hence, exemplary damages may be awarded to
the aggrieved party.—
- RCPI’s argument that it cannot be held liable for exemplary damages, being penal or punitive in character, is
without merit.
- We have so held in many cases, and oddly, quite a number of them likewise involved the herein petitioner as the
transgressor.

“In contracts and quasi-contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. There was gross negligence on the part of RCPI personnel
in transmitting the wrong telegram, of which RCPI must be held liable. Gross carelessness or negligence
constitutes wanton misconduct. “…….punitive damages may be recovered for wilful or wantonly negligent acts
in respect of messages, even though those acts are neither authorized nor ratified”
- Thus, punitive damages have been recovered for mistakes in the transmission of telegrams

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.