Telefast Communication /Philippines Wireless INC. vs.

Castro
156 SCRA 445
Digest No. 20
Facts: November 2, 1956, Consolacion Bravo-Castro, wife of the plaintiff Igancio
Castro, Sr. and mother of the other plaintiffs, died in Lingayen, Pangasinan. On the same
day , her daughter Sofia Crouch, who was then vacationing in the Philippines, addressed
a telegram to plaintiff Igancio Castro Sr. Indiana , USA , announcing her mothers Death.
The telegram was accepted by the defendant in its Dagupan office, for transmission , after
payment of the required fee.
The tetegram never reached its addressee . Consolacion was interred with only
her daughter Sofia in attendance. Neither the husband nor any of the other children of the
deceased , then all resididing in the United States , retured for the burial.
When Sofia returned to the United States , she discovered that the wire she had
caused the defendant to send had not been received . She and the other plaintiffs
thereupon brought action for damages arising form defendants breach of contract. The
only defense of the defendant was that it was unable to transmit the telegram because of
technical atmospheric factors beyond control.
The Court of first instance of Pangasinan , after trial, ordered the petitioner to pay
the private respondent damages with interest. Petitioner appeals form the judgment of
the court of appeals, contending that the award for moral damages should be eliminated
as defendant s negligent act was not motivated by fraud, malice or recklessness.
Issue: whether or not petitioner is liable for the said damages.
Held:
Yes, in the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent Sofia C, Crouch, entered into a
contract whereby , for a fee, petitioner undertook to send said private respondents
message overseas by telegram. This , petitioner did not do, despite performance by said
private respondent of her obligation by paying the required charges. Petitioner was
therefore guilty of contravening its obligation to said private respondent and is thus liable
for damages.
This liability is not limited to actual or quantified damages. To sustain
petitioners contrary position in this regard would result in an iniquitous where petitioner
will only be held liable for the actual cost of a telegram fixed (30) years ago.
We find, Art. 2217 of the Civil Code , applicable to the case at bar , here
petitioners act or omission , which amounted to gross negligence , was precisely the
cause of the suffering private respondent had undergo.