RCPI vs. Venchez, Et Al.,

8/10/2019 RCPI vs. Venchez, Et Al.,

1/6

G.R. No. 164349 January 31, 2006

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF TH !HI"I!!INS, INC. #RC!I$,Petitioner,vs.A"FONSO %RCH&, GRAC %RCH&'INFANT, MARDONIO INFANT, &NAIDA %RCH&'CATI(OG,AND FORTUNATO CATI(OG, Respondents.

D C I S I O N

CAR!IO MORA"S, J.:

On January 21, 1991, Editha Hebron Verchez (Editha !as con"ined at the #orso$on Provincia% Hospita% due to aai%&ent. On even date, her dau$hter 'race Verchez)n"ante ('race i&&ediate%y hied to the #orso$on *ranch the Radio +o&&unications o" the Phi%ippines, )nc. (R+P) !hose services she en$a$ed to send a te%e$ra& to hsister enaida Verchez+atibo$ (enaida !ho !as residin$ at 1- e$a% #t., '#)# Vi%%a$e, /uezon +ity1readin#end chec &oney 3o&&y hospita%. 4or R+P)5s services, 'race paid P16.762"or !hich she !as issuedreceipt.8

s three days a"ter R+P) !as en$a$ed to send the te%e$ra& to enaida no response !as received "ro& he'race sent a %etter to enaida, this ti&e thru JR# :e%ivery #ervice, repri&andin$ her "or not sendin$ any "inanciaid.

)&&ediate%y a"ter she received 'race5s %etter, enaida, a%on$ !ith her husband 4ortunato +atibo$, %e"t on Janua2;, 1991 "or #orso$on. On her arriva% at #orso$on, she disc%ai&ed havin$ received any te%e$ra&.

)n the &eanti&e, enaida and her husband, to$ether !ith her &other Editha %e"t "or /uezon +ity on January 2-1991 and brou$ht Editha to the Veterans 3e&oria% Hospita% in /uezon +ity !here she !as con"ined "ro& Janua86, 1991 to 3arch 21, 1991.

uestin$ "or con"erence on a speci"ied date and ti&e, but no representative o" R+P) sho!ed up at said date and ti&e.

On pri% 1B, 1992, Editha died.

On #epte&ber -, 1998, Verchez, a%on$ !ith his dau$hters 'race and enaida and their respective spouses, "i%ea co&p%aint a$ainst R+P) be"ore the Re$iona%


2/6

uaside%ict and is $overned by the provisions o" this +hapter.

rtic%e 11B8 de"ines the "au%t o" (sic ne$%i$ence o" the ob%i$or as the o&ission o" the di%i$ence !hich is re>uireby the nature o" the ob%i$ation and corresponds !ith the circu&stances o" the person, o" the ti&e, or the p%ace.

)n the instant case, the ob%i$ation o" the de"endant to de%iver the te%e$ra& to the addressee is o" an ur$ent nature)ts essence is the ear%y de%ivery o" the te%e$ra& to the concerned person. Get, due to the ne$%i$ence o" ite&p%oyees, the de"endant "ai%ed to dischar$e o" its ob%i$ation on ti&e &ain$ it %iab%e "or da&a$es under rtic21B;.

R+P)5s stand "ai%s. )t bears notin$ that its %iabi%ity is anchored on culpa contractual or breach o" contract !ire$ard to 'race, and on tort !ith re$ard to her cop%ainti""shereincorespondents.

rtic%e 11B6 o" the +ivi% +ode provides0


3/6

his interest in havin$ restored to hi& any bene"it that he has con"erred on the other party. )ndeed, a$ree&ents caacco&p%ish %itt%e, either "or their &aers or "or society, un%ess they are &ade the basis "or action. uestin$ a chec that !ou%d tae ; days be"ore it cou%d be !ithdra!n there"ore contradicts p%ainti""c%ai& o" ur$ency or need.2-

t any rate, any sense o" ur$ency o" the situation !as &et !hen 'race Verchez !as ab%e to co&&unicate 3ani%a via a %etter that she sent to the sa&e addressee in 3ani%a thru JR#.29
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt29


4/6

? ? ? ?

s "ar as the respondent court5s a!ard "or &ora% da&a$es is concerned, the sa&e has no basis !hatsoever sinprivate respondent %"onso Verchez did not acco&pany his %ate !i"e !hen the %atter !ent to 3ani%a by bus. Hstayed behind in #orso$on "or a%&ost 1 !ee be"ore he proceeded to 3ani%a. 86

Fhen pressed on crosse?a&ination, private respondent %"onso Verchez cou%d not $ive any p%ausib%e reason ato the reason !hy he did not acco&pany his ai%in$ !i"e to 3ani%a.81

? ? ? ?

)t is a%so i&portant to consider in reso%vin$ private respondents5 c%ai& "or &ora% da&a$es that private responde'race Verchez did not acco&pany her ai%in$ &other to 3ani%a.82

? ? ? ?

)t is the co&&on reaction o" a husband to be at his ai%in$ !i"e5s side as &uch as possib%e. uaside%ict and is $overned by the provisions o" this +hapter. (Anderscorin$ supp%ied

R+P)5s %iabi%ity as an e&p%oyer cou%d o" course be avoided i" it cou%d prove that it observed the di%i$ence o" a $oo"ather o" a "a&i%y to prevent da&a$e. rtic%e 21-6 o" the +ivi% +ode so provides0

uisites @usti"y the a!ard is in order0

? ? ? firstly, evidence o" bes&irched reputation or physica%, &enta% or psycho%o$ica% su""erin$ sustained by thc%ai&antC secondly, a cu%pab%e act or o&ission "actua%%y estab%ishedC thirdly, proo" that the !ron$"u% act or o&issioo" the de"endant is the pro?i&ate cause o" da&a$es sustained by the c%ai&antC and fourthly, that the case predicated on any o" the instances e?pressed or envisioned by rtic%e 2219 and rtic%e 2226 o" the +ivi% +ode. 8=

Respectin$ the "irst re>uisite, evidence o" su""erin$ by the p%ainti""sherein respondents !as correct%y appreciateby the + in this !ise0

ui%%ity. 4a&i%y &e&bers b%a&ed each other "or "ai%in$ to respond s!i"t%y to an e&er$ency that invo%ved the %i"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_164349_2006.html#fnt34


5/6

o" the %ate 3rs. Verchez, !ho su""ered "ro& diabetes.87

s re"%ected in the "ore$oin$ discussions, the second and third re>uisites are present.

On the "ourth re>uisite, rtic%e 2226 o" the +ivi% +ode provides0

Fi%%"u% in@ury to property &ay be a %e$a% $round "or a!ardin$ &ora% da&a$es i" the court shou%d "ind that, under thcircu&stances, such da&a$es are @ust%y due. T* a


6/6

Fhi%e a contract o" adhesion is not necessari%y void and unen"orceab%e, since it is construed strict%y a$ainst thparty !ho dra"ted it or $ave rise to any a&bi$uity therein, it is stricen do!n as void and unen"orceab%e osubversive o" pub%ic po%icy !hen the !eaer party is i&posed upon in dea%in$ !ith the do&inant bar$ainin$ parand is reduced to the a%ternative o" tain$ it or %eavin$ it, co&p%ete%y deprived o" the opportunity to bar$ain oe>ua% "ootin$.89

Documents

RCPI vs. Venchez, Et Al.,