11.

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:

Loreto Dionela filed a complaint of damages against Radio Communiciations of the Philippines,
Inc. (RCPI) due to the telegram sent through its Manila Office to the former.

Loreto Dionela alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent to him wounded his
feelings, caused him undue embarrassment and affected adversely his business because other
people have come to know of said defamatory words. RCPI alleges that the additional words in
Tagalog was a private joke between the sending and receiving operators, that they were not
addressed to or intended for plaintiff and therefore did not form part of the telegram, and that
the Tagalog words are not defamatory.

The RTC ruled that the additional words are libelous for any person reading the same would
logically think that they refer to Dionela, thus RCPI was ordered to pay moral damages in the
amount of P40, 000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision ruling that the company was
negligent and failed to take precautionary steps to avoid the occurrence of the humiliating
incident, and the fact that a copy of the telegram is filed among other telegrams and open to
public is sufficient publication; however reducing the amount awarded to P15, 000.00

ISSUE: WON the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in awarding Atty's. fees.

HELD:

Petitioner's contentions do not merit our consideration. The action for damages was filed in the
lower court directly against respondent corporation not as an employer subsidiarily liable under
the provisions of Article 1161 of the New Civil Code in relation to Art. 103 of the Revised Penal
Code. The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19 and 20 of the New Civil
Code (supra). As well as on respondent's breach of contract thru the negligence of its own
employees. 1
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting
messages. Every time a person transmits a message through the facilities of the petitioner, a
contract is entered into. Upon receipt of the rate or fee fixed, the petitioner undertakes to
transmit the message accurately. There is no question that in the case at bar, libelous matters
were included in the message transmitted, without the consent or knowledge of the sender.
There is a clear case of breach of contract by the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous
matters in the message sent to the private respondent. As a corporation, the petitioner can act
only through its employees. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting
messages are the acts of the petitioner. To hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the
acts of its employees in the pursuit of petitioner's business is to deprive the general public
availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy.

In most cases, negligence must be proved in order that plaintiff may recover. However, since
negligence may be hard to substantiate in some cases, we may apply the doctrine of RES IPSA
LOQUITUR (the thing speaks for itself), by considering the presence of facts or circumstances
surrounding the injury.

12.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT

OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC BROADCASTING CORP., VIVA PRODUCTIONS, INC., and
VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS:
In 1992, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, through its vice president Charo
Santos-Concio, requested Viva Production, Inc. to allow ABS-CBN to air at least 14 films
produced by Viva. Pursuant to this request, a meeting was held between Viva’s
representative (Vicente Del Rosario) and ABS-CBN’s Eugenio Lopez (General Manager)
and Santos-Concio was held on April 2, 1992. During the meeting Del Rosario proposed a
film package which will allow ABS-CBN to air 104 Viva films for P60 million. Later, Santos-
Concio, in a letter to Del Rosario, proposed a counterproposal of 53 films (including the 14
films initially requested) for P35 million. Del Rosario presented the counter offer to Viva’s
Board of Directors but the Board rejected the counter offer. Several negotiations were
subsequently made but on April 29, 1992, Viva made an agreement with Republic
Broadcasting Corporation (referred to as RBS – or GMA 7) which gave exclusive rights to
RBS to air 104 Viva films including the 14 films initially requested by ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN now filed a complaint for specific performance against Viva as it alleged
that there is already a perfected contract between Viva and ABS-CBN in the April 2, 1992
meeting. Lopez testified that Del Rosario agreed to the counterproposal and he (Lopez)
even put the agreement in a napkin which was signed and given to Del Rosario. ABS-CBN
also filed an injunction against RBS to enjoin the latter from airing the films. The injunction
was granted. RBS now filed a countersuit with a prayer for moral damages as it claimed that
its reputation was debased when they failed to air the shows that they promised to their
viewers. RBS relied on the ruling in People vs Manero and Mambulao Lumber vs PNB
which states that a corporation may recover moral damages if it “has a good reputation that
is debased, resulting in social humiliation”. The trial court ruled in favor of Viva and RBS.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court

ISSUE:
Whether or not a corporation, like RBS, is entitled to an award of moral damages
upon grounds of debased reputation.

HELD:
No.
The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because,
being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no
feelings, no emotions, no senses, It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and
mental anguish, which call be experienced only by one having a nervous system. No moral
damages can be awarded to a juridical person. The statement in the case of People vs
Manero and Mambulao Lumber vs PNB is a mere obiter dictum hence it is not binding as
jurisprudence.