Case Summary (G.R. No. L-44748)
Telegram Content and Plaintiff’s Allegation
The telegram transmitted through RCPI’s facilities to Loreto Dionela contained additional Tagalog words at its foot which the plaintiff alleged were libelous, wounded his feelings, caused embarrassment, and harmed his business and social standing because third persons became aware of the defamatory phrase. The defendant-corporation contended the Tagalog words were a private joke between sending and receiving operators, not intended for the addressee, and therefore did not form part of the telegram or constitute defamation.
Factual Circumstances of Transmission and Receipt
The telegram as transmitted was received automatically at the teletype machine in RCPI’s Legaspi City station, detached from the machine, placed in a sealed envelope, and delivered to the plaintiff without removal or excision of the Tagalog words. The station file retained carbon copies of received telegrams filed together and accessible in the office.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
The trial court found the additional Tagalog words to be libelous per se and held RCPI liable. The court reasoned that (1) the words imputed a vice or defect to the plaintiff and naturally would be understood to refer to the addressee; (2) there was no indication on the face of the telegram that the words were a private joke between operators; (3) RCPI’s business is to transmit telegrams and it cannot escape liability by asserting its employees acted beyond their duties; and (4) publication was established by the manner in which telegram copies were kept and accessible. The trial court awarded P40,000.00 as moral damages and P3,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals Findings and Modification
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding of liability but reduced the awards to P15,000.00 for moral damages and P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees. The appellate court emphasized RCPI’s negligence in failing to adopt safeguards to prevent such humiliating incidents, held that such negligence was imputable to the corporation, and found that publication was sufficiently proven by the open filing and availability of telegram copies to third parties. It also treated the Tagalog words as libelous per se and deemed malice presumed in the absence of showing of good faith.
Assignments of Error Presented to the Supreme Court
RCPI’s assignments of error argued that: (I) the Court of Appeals erred in holding the corporation directly and primarily liable for the criminal act of its employee; (II) there was insufficient publication to constitute libel; (III) liability should not rest on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code; and (IV) the award of attorney’s fees was erroneous.
Supreme Court Analysis: Basis of Action and Liability
The Supreme Court declined to sustain petitioner’s contentions. It observed that the private respondent filed the civil action directly against the corporation (not merely seeking subsidiary employer liability under Article 1161 in relation to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code). The Court accepted that the cause of action was grounded on Articles 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code and on breach of contract through negligent performance of the corporation’s contractual duty to transmit messages accurately. The Court stressed that a corporation acts through its employees; therefore, the employees’ acts performed in the course of the business are attributable to the corporation itself. Consequently, RCPI was directly liable for the inclusion of extraneous, libelous matter in the telegram.
Doctrinal Principles Applied
The Court applied the master–servant rule: in contracts the negligence of the servant (employee) is imputed to the master (employer). It likewise invoked contract liability where RCPI, for a fee, undertook to transmit messages accurately and breached that duty by adding libelous matter. The Court also noted the utility of res ipsa loquitur in appropriate situations where negligence is difficult to prove directly, allowing the circumstances to speak for themselves.
Publication and Libel Findings
Both
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-44748)
Citation, Court, Date, and Panel
- Reported at 227 Phil. 619.
- Decided by the Supreme Court, Second Division.
- G.R. No. L-44748; decision dated August 29, 1986.
- Decision authored by Justice Paras.
- Justices Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay, and Gutierrez, Jr., concurred.
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Petitioner: Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. (RCPI), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting messages (telegrams).
- Respondents: Court of Appeals and private respondent Loreto Dionela.
- Nature of the case: Petition for review by certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision in a civil action for recovery of damages (for libel and breach of contract/negligence) instituted by Loreto Dionela against RCPI.
Material Telegram Text (as received and reproduced in the record)
- The telegram transmitted through petitioner’s Manila Office and received at Legaspi City read:
- "176 AS JR 1215PM 9PAID MANDALUYONG JUL 22-66 LORETO DIONELA CABANGAN LEGASPI CITY WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK FER LORETO DIONELA-CABANGAN - WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK-PER 115 PM SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING-KA DIYAN-WALA KANG PADALA DITO-KAHIT BULBUL MO" (p. 19, Annex "A").
Factual Background — Transmission and Receipt
- Petitioner’s business: receiving and transmitting messages; each transmission involves a contract with the sender upon payment of the prescribed rate or fee.
- The telegram was received at petitioner’s Legaspi City station by a teletype machine which automatically receives transmitted telegrams.
- The machine was manned by an operator; nobody else manned it.
- The telegram was detached from the teletype machine, placed inside a sealed envelope, and delivered to the addressee, Loreto Dionela, as it appeared on the teletype (i.e., the Tagalog additional words were included).
- The Tagalog additional words were not noticed as separate or extraneous; they were included in the telegram when delivered.
Private Respondent’s Allegations and Claims
- Loreto Dionela alleged:
- The Tagalog words in the telegram were defamatory and wounded his feelings.
- The additional words caused undue embarrassment and adversely affected his business because others learned of the defamatory words.
- The cause of action was predicated on Articles 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code and for breach of contract through the negligence of petitioner’s employees.
Petitioner’s Defense
- Petitioner alleged:
- The additional Tagalog words were a private joke between the sending and receiving operators.
- Those Tagalog words were not addressed to or intended for the plaintiff and therefore did not form part of the telegram.
- The Tagalog words are not defamatory.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
- The trial court found for the plaintiff, establishing:
- The additional words in Tagalog are libelous; they impute a vice or defect of the plaintiff.
- Whether or not such words were intended for the plaintiff, the effect on the plaintiff is the same; any person reading them would naturally think they refer to the addressee.
- There was no indication on the face of the telegram that the additional words were a private joke between operators.
- Defendant sued directly (not merely as an employer); petitioner’s business is to transmit telegrams and it cannot escape liability by claiming employees acted beyond the scope of assigned tasks.
- Liability of defendant was predicated on Article 33 of the Civil Code and on Articles 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code:
- Article 19: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
- Article 20: “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
- There was sufficient publication of the libelous Tagalog words: office copies of telegrams were open, held together by a metal fastener, and open to view and inspection by third parties.
- Conclusion on damages: plaintiff, a businessman, had his business and social standing affected; moral damages fixed at P40,000.00 and attorney’s fees fixed at P3,000.00 to be paid by defendant. (Quotations from trial court at pp. 15-16, Record on Appeal.)
Court of Appeals Findings and Rationale
- The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court’s findings but modified the awards:
- Fau