Rcpi Vs Verchez 2006

RCPI vs VERCHEZ 2006
RECIT RECALL: Respondents engaged the services of the

petitioner to send an important telegram. It was received
by the respondents 25 days later. They filed a case for
damages against the petitioner and claimed that the delay
in delivering the telegram contributed to the early
passing of their mother. Petitioner argued that the cause
of delay was due to a fortuitous event. The court said that
the petitioner is liable for damages under article 1170 for
breach of contract. Petitioner bound itself to deliver the
telegram within the shortest possible time. It took them,
however, 25 days to deliver it.
As regards the issue on fortuitous event, the court said
that such rule is not applicable because respondent was
negligent. Considering that they are a public utility, they
should have exercised due diligence and exerted every
reasonable effort to inform senders of the non-delivery of
messages.
Zenaida Verchez-Catibog (Zenaida), asking her to send

money for their mother Editha Verchez (Editha) who at
that time was confined in a hospital in Sorsogon. But it
took 25 days before such message was conveyed to
Zenaida.
When Editha died, her husband, respondent Alfonso
Verchez (Alfonso), along with his daughters Grace and
Zenaida and their respective spouses, filed an action for
damages against RCPI before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Sorsogon. They alleged that the delay in the
delivery of the message contributed to the early death of
Editha. RCPI argues, among other things, that the delay
in the delivery is caused by force majeure; hence they
must be released from any liability. The RTC rendered
judgement against RCPI. RCPI appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: W/N RCPI may be held liable for damages.
Held: Yes.
FACTS:
Respondent Grace Verchez-Infante (Grace) hired the
services of Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc.
(RCPI) to send a telegram to her sister respondent
Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides: Those who in the

performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
(Italics supplied) Passing on this codal provision, this

Court explained: In culpa contractual x x x the mere proof
of the existence of the contract and the failure of its
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of
relief. The law, recognizing the obligatory force of
contracts, will not permit a party to be set free from
liability for any kind of misperformance of the
contractual undertaking or a contravention of the tenor
thereof. A breach upon the contract confers upon the
injured party a valid cause for recovering that which may
have been lost or suffered. In the case at bar, RCPI bound
itself to deliver the telegram within the shortest possible
time. It took 25 days, however, for RCPI to deliver it.
x
x
x
it
is
necessary
that
one
has
committed no negligence or misconduct that may have
occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to
protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall
the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. Ones
negligence may have concurred with an act of God in
producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless,
showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the
damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not
exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to
be partly the result of a persons participation
whether by active intervention, neglect or failure
to act the whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.
-----xxxx
RCPI invokes force majeure, specifically, the alleged
radio noise and interferences which adversely affected
the transmission and/or reception of the telegraphic
message. Additionally, its messenger claimed he could
not locate the address of Zenaida and it was only on the
third attempt that he was able to deliver the telegram.
Article 1174 of the Civil Code states that no person shall

be responsible for a fortuitous event that could not be
foreseen or, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other
words, there must be an exclusion of human
intervention from the cause of injury or
loss.24 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
For the defense of force majeure to prosper,

Assuming arguendo that
fortuitous
circumstances
prevented RCPI from delivering the telegram at the
soonest possible time, it should have at least informed

Grace of the non-transmission and the non-delivery so
that she could have taken steps to remedy the situation.
But it did not. There lies the fault or negligence.

Rcpi Vs Verchez 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rcpi Vs Verchez 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rcpi Vs Verchez 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCPI vs VERCHEZ 2006

RECIT RECALL: Respondents engaged the services of the

Zenaida Verchez-Catibog (Zenaida), asking her to send

Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides: Those who in the

(Italics supplied) Passing on this codal provision, this

Article 1174 of the Civil Code states that no person shall

For the defense of force majeure to prosper,

soonest possible time, it should have at least informed

You might also like