Telefast v. Castro Digest G.R. No.

73867
Telefast v. Castro
G.R. No. 73867 February 29, 1988

Facts:

1. The petitioner is a company engaged in transmitting telegrams. The plaintiffs are the children and
spouse of Consolacion Castro who died in the Philippines. One of the plaintiffs, Sofia sent a
telegram thru Telefast to her father and other siblings in the USA to inform about the death of
their mother. Unfortunately, the deceased had already been interred but not one from the
relatives abroad was able to pay their last respects. Sofia found out upon her return in the US that
the telegram was never received. Hence the suit for damages on the ground of breach of
contract. The defendant-petitioner argues that it should only pay the actual amount paid to it.
2. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory, moral, exemplary,
damages to each of the plaintiffs with 6% interest p.a. plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals
affirmed this ruling but modified and eliminated the compensatory damages to Sofia and
exemplary damages to each plaintiff, it also reduced the moral damages for each. The petitioner
appealed contending that, it can only be held liable for P 31.92, the fee or charges paid by Sofia
C. Crouch for the telegram that was never sent to the addressee, and that the moral damages
should be removed since defendant's negligent act was not motivated by "fraud, malice or
recklessness.

Issue: Whether or not the award of the moral, compensatory and exemplary damages is proper.

RULING: Yes, there was a contract between the petitioner and private respondent Sofia C. Crouch
whereby, for a fee, petitioner undertook to send said private respondent's message overseas by telegram.
Petitioner failed to do this despite performance by said private respondent of her obligation by paying the
required charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of contravening its and is thus liable for damages. This
liability is not limited to actual or quantified damages. To sustain petitioner's contrary position in this
regard would result in an inequitous situation where petitioner will only be held liable for the actual cost of
a telegram fixed thirty (30) years ago.

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 manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages." Art. 2176 also provides that "whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done."

Award of Moral, compensatory and exemplary damages is proper.

The petitioner's act or omission, which amounted to gross negligence, was precisely the cause of the
suffering private respondents had to undergo. Art. 2217 of the Civil Code states: "Moral damages include
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate results of the defendant's wrongful act or omission."

Then, the 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 for each of the private
respondents, as a warning to all telegram companies to observe due diligence in transmitting the
messages of their customers.
- See more at: http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/07/telefast-v-castro-digest-gr-no-
73867.html#sthash.iJKwfKNU.dpuf