Scribd
Upload
660 views2 pages

Case Digest PFR Subject RCPI vs. CA 143 SCRA 657 (G.R. No. L-44748. August 29, 1986.)

Loreto Dionela filed a complaint against Radio Communications of the Philippines (RCPI) after receiving a defamatory telegram through their Manila office. The additional Tagalog words in the telegram were meant as a private joke between operators but were still viewed as referring to and humiliating Dionela. While RCPI claimed the words were not intended for Dionela, the courts ruled RCPI was negligent and liable for damages caused by employee actions. As a corporation, RCPI can only act through employees so their acts are considered acts of the company. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where negligence may be inferred from the circumstances, was also applied. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both affirmed RCPI's liability

Uploaded by

Grandeur P. G. Guerrero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
660 views2 pages

Case Digest PFR Subject RCPI vs. CA 143 SCRA 657 (G.R. No. L-44748. August 29, 1986.)

Loreto Dionela filed a complaint against Radio Communications of the Philippines (RCPI) after receiving a defamatory telegram through their Manila office. The additional Tagalog words in the telegram were meant as a private joke between operators but were still viewed as referring to and humiliating Dionela. While RCPI claimed the words were not intended for Dionela, the courts ruled RCPI was negligent and liable for damages caused by employee actions. As a corporation, RCPI can only act through employees so their acts are considered acts of the company. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where negligence may be inferred from the circumstances, was also applied. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both affirmed RCPI's liability

Uploaded by

Grandeur P. G. Guerrero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE DIGEST ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS (PFR) SUBJECT

1st Year 1st Semester

Student : Guerrero, Grandeur P.G.


Freshman, Juris Doctor
Professor : Hon. Judge Eugene C. Paras

Case Digest, in re: Arts. 19 to 36 of Civil Code of the Philippines


(Human Relations)

Title: RCPI vs. CA 143 SCRA 657


[G.R. No. L-44748. August 29, 1986.]

Petitioner: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES,


INC. (RCPI)

Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS AND LORETO DIONELA

Ponente: Justice Paras

Facts:

Loreto Dionela filed a complaint of damages against Radio Communications


of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) due to the telegram sent through its Manila
Office to the former, reading as follows:

176 AS JR 1215PM 9 PAID 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

Loreto Dionela alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent to
him wounded his feelings, caused him undue embarrassment and affected
adversely his business because other people have come to know of said
defamatory words. RCPI alleges that the additional words in Tagalog was a
private joke between the sending and receiving operators, that they were
not addressed to or intended for plaintiff and therefore did not form part of
the telegram, and that the Tagalog words are not defamatory.

The RTC ruled that the additional words are libelous for any person reading
the same would logically think that they refer to Dionela, thus RCPI was
ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P40,000.00. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision ruling that the company was negligent and
failed to take precautionary steps to avoid the occurrence of the
humiliating incident, and the fact that a copy of the telegram is filed among
other telegrams and open to public is sufficient publication; however
reducing the amount awarded to P15,000.00

Issue:

Whether or not the company should answer directly and primarily for the
civil liability arising from the criminal act of its employee.

Ruling:

Yes. The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19 and
20 of the New Civil Code, as well as on respondent’s breach of contract
thru the negligence of its own employees. By adding extraneous and
libelous matters in the message sent to the private respondent, there is a
clear breach of contract; for upon payment of the fixed rate, the company
undertakes to transmit the message accurately.

In contracts, the negligence of the employee (servant) is the negligence of


the employer (master). This is the master and servant rule. As a
corporation, the petitioner can act only through its employees. Hence the
acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts
of the petitioner. To hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the
acts of its employees in the pursuit of petitioner’s business is to deprive the
general public availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and
adequate remedy.

In most cases, negligence must be proved in order that plaintiff may


recover. However, since negligence may be hard to substantiate in some
cases, we may apply the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the thing
speaks for itself), by considering the presence of facts or circumstances
surrounding the injury.

The judgment of the CA is affirmed.

You might also like