Telefast vs Castro (1988)

Facts:
In 1956, Sofia Castro-Crouch (plaintiff-respondent) was vacationing in Pangasinan in her parents house.That same
year in November, her mother, Consolacion died. On the day of her mothers death she addressed a
telegram to her father Ignacio who was then in the US announcing Consolacions death. Thetelegram was accepted by
Telefast (defendant-petitioner) in its Dagupan office after payment of requiredfees or charges.The telegram never reached
the addressee. Consolacion was interred without her husband and childrenbesides Sofia.Sofia went back to the US
and learned that the telegram never reached her father. Thus, she and her siblings and their father sued
Telefast for damages arising from the breach of contract by the defendant.Petitioner-defendant Telefast interposed that the
reason why the telegram never reached the addresseeis because of technical and atmospheric factors beyond its
control. It appears though that no attemptmade by defendant to inform Sofia for that matter or any reason at
all that explains why the telegram reached the addressee.The CFI ruled in favor of Sofia and her co-
plaintiffs awarding her damages she prayed for. Telefast appealed before the IAC which affirmed the decision of
the CFI.Hence this appeal.
Issues:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages arising from the breach of contract even though that therewas a technical
and atmospheric factors that lead to its failure to comply with terms of the contract?
Held:
Yes. Art. 1170 of the Civil Code provides, Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, delay,
negligence, 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.In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent Sofia C. Crouch entered into a
contract whereby, for a fee, petitioner undertook to send said private respondents message overseas by
telegram. This,petitioner did not do, despite performance by said private respondent of her obligation by
paying therequired charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of contravening its obligation to said private respondentand is
thus liable for damages.Also, it is evident that petitioner did not do anything to advise the plaintiff of the circumstances
which leadto its failure to comply with its obligation. It is apparent that such tantamount to gross negligence. Hencebad
faith

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 attorneys 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.