Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44748)
Facts:
In the case of Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) vs. Court of Appeals and Loreto Dionela, decided by the Supreme Court on August 29, 1986, the petitioner RCPI is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting telegram messages. On July 22, 1966, a telegram was sent through RCPI's Manila office addressed to Loreto Dionela, the private respondent, at Cabangan, Legaspi City. The telegram contained a message concerning the arrival of a check but included additional words in Tagalog which read: "WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK-PER 115 PM SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING-KA DIYAN-WALA KANG PADALA DITO-KAHIT BULBUL MO." Private respondent alleged that these added words were libelous, defamatory, and damaging to his reputation and business, as the telegram, including the additional words, was received, detached, sealed in an envelope, and delivered to him without any censorship or indication that those words were not part of the mes
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44748)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Case
- Petitioner: Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI), a domestic corporation engaged in transmitting telegrams.
- Respondents: Court of Appeals and Loreto Dionela (private respondent).
- Case involves a civil action for recovery of damages filed by Loreto Dionela against RCPI for sending a defamatory telegram.
- Content and Circumstances of the Telegram
- The telegram sent through RCPI’s Manila Office to Loreto Dionela contained additional words in Tagalog that were allegedly libelous:
- Plaintiff alleged the defamatory words wounded his feelings, caused embarrassment, and adversely affected his business due to others knowing the defamatory content.
- Defendant’s Defense
- RCPI claimed the additional Tagalog words were a private joke between its sending and receiving operators, not addressed to or intended for the plaintiff.
- Defendant argued the Tagalog words were not defamatory and did not form part of the telegram.
- Facts Surrounding the Transmission and Delivery
- The telegram was received at Legaspi City station by the teletype operator and delivered to plaintiff inside a sealed envelope without removal or editing.
- The additional Tagalog words were included in the telegram as delivered; the plaintiff and others could see them.
- Trial Court Findings and Award
- The trial court found the Tagalog words libelous as they imputed a vice or defect to the plaintiff and would be naturally understood to refer to him.
- The defendant’s act constituted a breach of contract and negligence.
- The court awarded P40,000.00 as moral damages and P3,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
- Liability was based on Articles 19, 20, and 33 of the Civil Code.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals affirmed negligence on part of RCPI for failure to prevent the incident.
- The court confirmed sufficient publication of the libelous words as telegram copies were accessible to the public.
- The Tagalog words were held libelous per se with presumed malice due to lack of justification.
- Award was modified, reducing moral damages to P15,000.00 and attorney’s fees to P2,000.00.
- The appellate court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner’s Assignment of Errors
- The Court of Appeals erred in holding the petitioner directly liable for the employee’s criminal act.
- It erred in finding sufficient publication of the libelous telegram.
- The court erred in basing liability on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.
- The award of attorney’s fees was erroneous.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner corporation is liable directly and primarily for the defamatory act committed by its employee.
- Whether the sending and delivery of the telegram containing additional defamatory words in Tagalog constitutes sufficient publication of libel.
- Whether the liability of the petitioner can be predicated on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code concerning human relations and breach of duty.
- Whether the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff was proper.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)