RCPI vs Court of Appeals

143 scra 657

Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code Negligence

Loreto Dionella alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent to him by the operator RCPI not only wounded his feelings but also caused him undue embarrassment and affected adversely his business as well because other people have come to know said defamatory words. Dionella filed for damages and was granted by the trial court and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals the liability of petitioner company employer predicated under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. RCPI now comes to the Supreme Court for review by certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the liability of RCPI is predicated under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. The cause of action of private respondent is based on Artciles 19 and 20 of the new Civil Code as well as respondents breach of contract thru negligence of its own employees.

FACTS: Petitioner, RCPI is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting messages. One of its employees had committed an error of sending libelous messages to a certain Loreto Dionela. As a consequence, a case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, and the decision was in favor of Dionela. When it was appealed to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the RTC was affirmed. RCPI then went to the Supreme Court, praying that it was not liable to the respondent since the criminal act from which the civil liability arouses was an act of its employee; there was no sufficient publication of the libelous telegram; and that the liability of the petitioner arising from Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code was erroneous. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code was violated by RCPI, as claimed by the Court of Appeals. 2. Whether or not Dionela was entitled to have some indemnifation from the petitioner due to damages incurred by the latter. RULING: Respondent committed breach of contract through the negligence of its employees. It was still said to be liable since every time a person transmits a message through the facilities of the petitioner, a contract is entered into. In contracts, the negligence of the employee is the negligence of the employer. Libelous messages or matters were included in the message transmitted, without the knowledge or consent of the sender. Breach of contract was committed then. 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 petitioners business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) was the doctrine applied by considering the presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury. The Court affirmed the assailed decision.