RCPI VS. CA

G.R. No. 79578 March 13, 1991

Facts:

Spouses Timan through RCPI sent a telegram, in order to express their condolences for the death of the mother-in-law of their cousins Mr. and Mrs. Midoranda. The telegram, however, was written in a “Happy Birthday” card and inserted in a “Christmasgram” envelope.

The spouses Timan, filed an action against RCPI in order to claim damages for the ridicule, contempt and humiliation that the latter caused to the private respondents.

RCPI in its defense alleges that the "error" in the social form used does not come within the ambit of fraud, malice or bad faith as understood/defined under the law.

Court rendered a decision in favor of Spouses Timan.

Issue:

Whether or not RCPI should be held liable

HELD:

YES

We fully agree with the appellate court's endorsement of the trial court's conclusion that RCPI, a corporation dealing in telecommunications and offering its services to the public, is engaged in a business affected with public interest. As such, it is bound to exercise that degree of diligence expected of it in the performance of its obligation.

In the present case, it is self-evident that a telegram of condolence is intended and meant to convey a message of sorrow and sympathy. Precisely, it is denominated "telegram of condolence" because it tenders sympathy and offers to share another's grief. It seems out of this world, therefore, to place that message of condolence in a birthday card and deliver the same in a Christmas envelope for such acts of carelessness and incompetence not only render violence to good taste and common sense, they depict a bizarre presentation of the sender's feelings. They ridicule the deceased's loved ones and destroy the atmosphere of grief and respect for the departed.