Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

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 S! to inform about the death of their mother. nfortunately, the deceased had already been interred but not one from the relati"es abroad was able to pay their last respects. Sofia found out upon her return in the S that the telegram was ne"er recei"ed. #ence 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. %. The lower court ruled in fa"or of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory, moral, e&emplary, damages to each of the plaintiffs with '( interest p.a. plus attorney)s fees. The Court of !ppeals affirmed this ruling but modified and eliminated the compensatory damages to Sofia and e&emplary 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 *1.+%, the fee or charges paid by Sofia C. Crouch for the telegram that was ne"er sent to the addressee, and that the moral damages should be remo"ed since defendant,s negligent act was not moti"ated by -fraud, malice or rec.lessness. Issue: W et er or !ot t e a"ar# of t e $oral, %o$&e!satory a!# e'e$&lary #a$a(es )s &ro&er. / 0123: 4es, there was a contract between the petitioner and pri"ate respondent Sofia C. Crouch whereby, for a fee, petitioner undertoo. to send said pri"ate respondent,s message o"erseas by telegram. Petitioner failed to do this despite performance by said pri"ate respondent of her obligation by paying the re5uired charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of contra"ening its and is thus liable for damages. This liability is not limited to actual or 5uantified damages. To sustain petitioner,s contrary position in this regard would result in an ine5uitous situation where petitioner will only be held liable for the actual cost of a telegram fi&ed thirty 6*78 years ago. !rt. 1197 of the Ci"il Code pro"ides that -those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contra"ene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.- !rt. %19' also pro"ides that -whoe"er by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.!ward of :oral, compensatory and e&emplary damages is proper. The petitioner,s act or omission, which amounted to gross negligence, was precisely the cause of the suffering pri"ate respondents had to undergo. !rt. %%19 of the Ci"il Code states: -:oral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious an&iety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shoc., social humiliation, and similar in;ury. 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 P1',777.77 as compensatory damages to Sofia C. Crouch representing the e&penses she incurred when she came to the Philippines from the nited States to testify before the trial court. #ad petitioner not been remiss in performing its obligation, there would ha"e been no need for this suit or for :rs. Crouch,s testimony. The award of e&emplary damages by the trial court is li.ewise ;ustified for each of the pri"ate respondents, as a warning to all telegram companies to obser"e due diligence in transmitting the messages of their customers.