Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Liability for delivering the right message in a wrong medium
Before Facebook and Twitter, cards and social telegrams were the favorite ways of expressing our greetings to our loved ones. During special occasions in the past, people were used to sending social telegrams to a person celebrating his birthday or grieving the death of a close relative. The use of social telegrams became as famous as sending emoji in a text messages or in social media nowadays.
It feels comforting when we receive a message of sympathy from our friends and relatives. But when you are grieving and what you received from a family friend is a condolence message written on a birthday card and placed inside “Christmasgram” envelope, what would you feel?
This incident happened to Mr. & Mrs. Hilario Midoranda. On January 24, 1983, spouses Minerva Timan and Flores Timan sent a telegram of condolence to their cousins, Mr. and Mrs. Hilario Midoranda, at Trinidad, Calbayog City, through RCPI at Cubao, Quezon City, to convey their deepest sympathy for the recent death of the mother-in-law of Hilario Midoranda to wit:
MR. & MRS. HILARIO MIDORANDA
TRINIDAD, CALBAYOG CITY
MAY GOD GIVE YOU COURAGE AND STRENGTH TO BEAR YOUR LOSS. OUR DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.
MINER & FLORY.
The condolence telegram was correctly transmitted as far as the written text was concerned. However, the condolence message as communicated and delivered to the addressees was typewritten on a “Happy Birthday” card and placed inside a “Christmasgram” envelope. Believing that this was done intentionally and with gross breach of contract resulting to ridicule, contempt, and humiliation of the spouses and the addressees, including their friends and relatives, the spouses Timan demanded an explanation. Unsatisfied with RCPI’s explanations, the Timans filed a complaint for damages.
The issue raised in Court was whether or not the act of delivering the condolence message in a “Happy Birthday” card with a “Christmasgram” envelope constitutes a breach of contract on the part of RCPI. If in the affirmative, whether or not spouses Timan are entitled to damages.
One of RCPI’s main arguments is that it still correctly transmitted the text of the telegram and was received by the addressees on time despite the fact that there was “error” in the social form and envelope used. RCPI asserts that there was no showing that it has any motive to cause harm or damage on the spouses.
The court said that 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.
Anyone who avails of the facilities of a telegram company like RCPI can choose to send his message in the ordinary form or in a social form. In the ordinary form, the text of the message is typed on plain newsprint paper. On the other hand, a social telegram is placed in a special form with the proper decorations and embellishments to suit the occasion and the message and delivered in an envelope matching the purpose of the occasion and the words and intent of the message. The sender pays a higher amount for the social telegram than for one in the ordinary form. It is clear, therefore, that when RCPI typed spouses Timan’s message of condolence in a birthday card and delivered the same in a colorful Christmasgram envelope, it committed a breach of contract as well as gross negligence. Its excuse that it had run out of social condolence cards and envelopes is flimsy and unacceptable. It could not have been faulted had it delivered the message in the ordinary form and reimbursed the difference in the cost to the Timans. But by transmitting it unfittingly—through other special forms clearly, albeit outwardly, portraying the opposite feelings of joy and happiness and thanksgiving—RCPI only exacerbated the sorrowful situation of the addressees and the senders. It bears stress that this botchery exposed not only the RCPI’s gross negligence but also its callousness and disregard for the sentiments of its clientele, which tantamount to wanton misconduct, for which it must be held liable for damages. (RCPI vs. Court of Appeals and Spouses Minerva Timan and Flores Timan, G.R. No. 79578, March 13, 1991)