GR 83768; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83768 February 28, 1990
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI) and GLOBE MACKAY AND RADIO CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, respondent.
FACTS
On September 8, 1978, respondent Rufus B. Rodriguez, as President of the World Association of Law Students (WALS), sent two overseas cablegrams through petitioner RCPI. One was addressed to Mohamed Elsir Taha in Khartoum, Sudan, advising of Rodriguez’s arrival for a conference, and the other to Diane Merger in the United States. RCPI relayed the telegrams to its correspondent, Globe Mackay, for international transmission. Rodriguez arrived in Khartoum on September 18, 1978, but Taha was not at the airport to meet him because the telegram was never delivered. Consequently, Rodriguez had to sleep at the airport, and all preparations for the international conference were cancelled. The telegram to Merger was also undelivered as she had moved, and this non-delivery was not reported back to Rodriguez.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether RCPI remains liable for the non-delivery of the telegrams after relaying them to Globe Mackay; and (2) whether the awards for moral, exemplary, and actual damages, as well as attorney’s fees, are justified under the circumstances.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed RCPI’s liability but modified the damages awarded. On the first issue, the Court held that RCPI, as the originating carrier, cannot absolve itself of responsibility by merely relaying the telegrams to its correspondent. RCPI contracted directly with Rodriguez for the service, and its responsibility extends to ensuring the telegrams reach their destination. The defense that the address for Taha was incomplete was unsubstantiated, and the record showed the non-delivery directly caused the conference cancellation and Rodriguez’s inconveniences.
Regarding damages, the Court sustained the award of actual damages (P43,148.00) for Rodriguez’s proven expenses. However, it reduced the moral damages from P100,000.00 to P10,000.00, finding the original award excessive. The Court deleted the awards for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Exemplary damages were not warranted as there was no showing of wanton or fraudulent conduct by RCPI. Attorney’s fees were disallowed because the trial court’s decision failed to state the factual and legal justification for the award in the body of its text, as required by jurisprudence. The decision of the Court of Appeals was thus modified accordingly.