G.R. No. L-44748 August 29, 1986
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS., INC. (RCPI), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LORETO DIONELA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Loreto Dionela filed a complaint for damages against petitioner RCPI. The cause of action arose from a telegram sent through RCPI’s Manila office to Dionela in Legaspi City. The official message pertained to a check. However, appended to the telegram were additional, unsolicited Tagalog words: “WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN-WALA-KANG PADALA DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO.” Dionela alleged these libelous words caused him embarrassment and injured his business and social standing, as other people came to know of them.
RCPI defended itself by claiming the Tagalog words were a private joke between the sending and receiving operators, not intended for Dionela and thus not part of the official telegram. The telegram was automatically received on a teletype machine in Legaspi, detached, placed in a sealed envelope, and delivered to Dionela with the extraneous words included, unnoticed by RCPI personnel.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether RCPI is directly and primarily liable for damages arising from the transmission and delivery of a telegram containing libelous words added by its employees without the sender’s consent.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision holding RCPI directly liable. The Court ruled that the cause of action was properly based on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code on human relations, and on breach of contract through negligence, not on subsidiary liability under penal law. Whenever a person transmits a message through RCPI for a fee, a contract is created whereby RCPI undertakes to transmit the message accurately. The inclusion of libelous matter constituted a clear breach of this contractual duty.
As a corporation, RCPI can only act through its employees; thus, the acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the corporation itself in the pursuit of its business. The Court rejected the argument that the company could escape liability by showing its employees acted beyond their assigned tasks, as this would deprive the public of an effective remedy and allow companies to act with impunity. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, as the very presence of the libelous words in the delivered telegram spoke of negligence in RCPI’s procedures. The Court also found sufficient publication, as carbon copies of telegrams were filed openly. Consequently, the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees was sustained.