G.R. No. 164349 ; January 31, 2006
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), Petitioner, vs. ALFONSO VERCHEZ, GRACE VERCHEZ-INFANTE, MARDONIO INFANTE, ZENAIDA VERCHEZ-CATIBOG, AND FORTUNATO CATIBOG, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 21, 1991, Grace Verchez-Infante engaged the services of RCPI’s Sorsogon branch to send a telegram to her sister Zenaida in Quezon City, reading “Send check money Mommy hospital,” as their mother Editha was confined. Grace paid the fee and was issued a receipt. The telegram was not delivered until February 15, 1991, 25 days later. RCPI’s investigation revealed the delay was due to radio noise and interference during transmission, necessitating a repeat transmission. Zenaida, having received no telegram, only learned of the situation via a later letter from Grace and immediately traveled to Sorsogon. Editha was later transferred to a Quezon City hospital, where she died on April 17, 1992.
The respondents filed a complaint for damages against RCPI, alleging the delay contributed to Editha’s early demise. RCPI defended itself by citing force majeure (radio noise) and a clause in its Telegram Transmission Form limiting liability to a refund of the telegram toll. The trial court ruled against RCPI, awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether RCPI is liable for damages for the delayed delivery of the telegram.

RULING

Yes, RCPI is liable. The Supreme Court denied RCPI’s petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic proceeds as follows: First, RCPI failed to prove that the cause of the delay—radio noise and interference—constituted a fortuitous event exempting it from liability. For an event to be considered fortuitous, it must be absolutely unforeseeable and unavoidable. The Court found that radio disturbances, while perhaps unforeseen in a specific instance, are known hazards inherent in the very nature of RCPI’s radio communications business. As such, they do not qualify as a valid defense, as the risk should be borne by the party whose business is exposed to such perils.
Second, the contractual clause RCPI relied upon to limit its liability is a contract of adhesion. It was prepared solely by RCPI, and Grace had no opportunity to negotiate its terms. The Court held such clauses, which aim to absolve a party from any liability arising from negligence, are void as they are contrary to public policy. A common carrier, or a business affected with public interest like a telegraph company, cannot contract away its liability for negligence.
Consequently, RCPI’s negligence in the performance of its obligation—the timely delivery of an urgent message—was established. This negligence gives rise to liability for damages under Article 1170 of the Civil Code. The award of moral damages was deemed proper due to the mental anguish, anxiety, and wounded feelings suffered by the family because of RCPI’s failure.