Case Digest (G.R. No. L-43653)
Facts:
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) v. Board of Communications and Diego Morales; Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) v. Board of Communications and Pacifico Innocencio, G.R. Nos. L-43653 and L-45378, November 29, 1977, Supreme Court First Division, Martin, J., writing for the Court.These two petitions for review by certiorari were consolidated by this Court's resolution of March 21, 1977, because both raised the same question: whether the Board of Communications had jurisdiction over private respondents' claims for damages for alleged non-delivery of telegrams sent through petitioner RCPI.
In BC Case No. 75-01-OC (G.R. No. L-43653) respondent Diego T. Morales alleged that a telegram sent to him on October 15, 1974 from Santiago, Isabela, informing him of his wife's death, was not delivered by RCPI; as a result he learned personally and had to travel by airplane to attend the burial, incurring inconvenience and expense. RCPI answered that the message reached its Message Center at Cubao but, when relayed from Cubao, the radio signal became intermittent and the copy received at Sta. Cruz, Manila was unreadable.
In BC Case No. 75-08-OC (G.R. No. L-45378) respondent Pacifico Innocencio alleged that a telegram sent on July 13, 1975 from Paniqui, Tarlac to him at Cavinti, Laguna notifying him of his father's death was never received and that the sender was not notified of non-delivery; consequently he missed the internment and suffered shock, mental anguish and inconvenience. The complaints in both cases sought damages for alleged negligent failure to transmit messages.
After hearing, the Board of Communications found RCPI's service inadequate and unsatisfactory and imposed upon petitioner in each case a disciplinary fine of P200 pursuant to Section 21 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (the Public Service Act), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1 and Letter of Implementation No...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Board of Communications have jurisdiction to take cognizance of and adjudicate private claims for damages arising from alleged breach of contractual obligations or quasi-delicts in the non-delivery of telegrams?
- If not, could the Board validly impose the P200 disciplinary fine under Section 21 of the Public Se...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)