15.

1 ARANETA VS DE JOYA

FACTS: This present petition for review stemmed from the recovery case filed by
Ace Advertising against Antonio R. de Joya, the general manager of the same
company. Ace Advertising prayed for the recovery of the total sum of Php5,043.20
disbursed to an employee named Ricardo Taylor, who was sent to the US to study
about television. The company alleged that the trip was made without its
knowledge, authority or ratification. The respondent, in his answer, denied the
charge and claimed that the trip was nonetheless ratified by the company's board
of directors, and that in any event under the by-laws he had the discretion, as
general manager, to authorize the trip which was for the company's benefit.
Along his answer, the respondent likewise filed a 3rd party complaint against the
Vicente Areneta (company treasurer), Ricardo Taylor, and herein petitioner. The
respondent proved that Vicente Araneta, as treasurer of the firm, signed a check
representing the company's share of the transportation expense of Taylor to the
United States, and that a series of payroll checks from September 15, 1953 to
December 31, 1953, inclusive, which included the salaries of Taylor, was signed
by Vicente Araneta and the petitioner who is a vice-president of the company.
CFI in its judgement, ordered respondent to pay the sum of php5,043.20 and
dismissed the 3rd party complaints.
Respondent appealed to CA, wherein it affirmed CFIs judgment as to the
recovery case, but reversed its decision with regard the third party complaints.
The appellate court found as a fact that Taylor's trip had been neither authorized
nor ratified by the company.
Petitioner averred in his defense that they signed the checks in good faith as they
were approved by the respondent.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is guilty of a quasi-delict.
RULING: YES. The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be upheld. The
petitioner's assertion that he signed the questioned payroll checks in good faith
has not been substantiated, he in particular not having testified or offered
testimony to prove such claim. Upon the contrary, in spite of his being a vicepresident and director of the Ace Advertising, the petitioner remained passive,
throughout the period of Taylor's stay abroad, concerning the unauthorized
disbursements of corporate funds for the latter. This plus the fact that he even
approved thrice payroll checks for the payment of Taylor's salary, demonstrate
quite distinctly that the petitioner neglected to perform his duties properly, to the
damage of the firm of which he was an officer. The fact that he was occupying a
contractual position at the Ace Advertising is of no moment. The existence of a
contract between the parties, as has been repeatedly held by this Court,
constitutes no bar to the commission of a tort by one against the other and the
consequent recovery of damages.

15.2 15.3 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CA and MS. LYDIA

GERONIMO
FACTS: Private respondent was the proprietress of Kindergarten Wonderland
Canteen in Dagupan City. In August 1989, some parents of the students
complained to her that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks sold by her contained
fiber-like matter and other foreign substances. She brought the said bottles for
examination to DOH and it was found out that the soft drinks are adulterated.
As a result, her per day sales of soft drinks severely plummeted that she had to
close her shop on 12 December 1989 for losses. She demanded damages from
petitioner before the RTC which dismissed the same on motion by petitioner
based on the ground of Prescription. On appeal, the CA annulled the orders of the
RTC.
ISSUE: WON the action for damages by the proprietress against the soft drinks
manufacturer should be treated as one for breach of implied warranty under
article 1561 of the CC which prescribes after six months from delivery of the thing
sold.
RULING: Petition Denied.

The SC agrees with the CAs conclusion that the cause of action in the case at bar
is found on quasi-delict under Article 1146 of the CC which prescribes in four
years and not on breach of warranty under article 1562 of the same code. This is
supported by the allegations in the complaint which makes reference to the
reckless and negligent manufacture of "adulterated food items intended to be
sold for public consumption."

15.3 American Express International, Inc. vs Noel Cordero

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Facts:
American Express International was a foreign corporation that issued charge
cards used to purchase goods and services at accredited merchants worldwide
to its customers. Nilda Cordero, wife of respondent Noel Cordero, was issued
an American Expresscharge card. An extension charge card, was likewise issued
to respondent Noel Cordero which he also signed. Respondent, together with his
family went on a three-day holiday trip to Hong Kong. The group went to the
Watsons Chemist Shop. While there, Noel picked up chocolate candies and
handed his American Express extension charge card to the sales clerk to pay
for his purchases. Susan Chong, the store manager, informed respondent that
she had to confiscate the card. Thereupon, she cut respondentsAmerican
Express card in half with a pair of scissors. This, according to respondent,
caused him embarrassment and humiliation. Hence, Nilda had to pay for the
purchases using her own American Express charge card.
The card was placed in the Inspect Airwarn Support System, asystem utilized by
petitioner as a protection both for the company and the cardholders against
the fraudulent use of their charge cards. Once a card suspected of unauthorized
use is placed in the system, the person to whom the card is tendered must verify
the identity of the holder. If the true identity of the card owner is established, the
card is honored and the charges are approved. Otherwise, the card is revoked or
confiscated.
Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for damages against
petitioner. He prayed for the award of moral damages and exemplary damages, as
well as attorneys fees as a result of the humiliation he suffered. According to the
trial court, petitioner should have informed respondent that on November 1, 1991,
a person in Hong Kong attempted to use a charge card bearing similar number to
that of respondents card and that petitioners inexcusable failure to do so is the
proximate cause of the confiscation and cutting of respondents extension card
which exposed the latter to public humiliation for which the petitioner should be
held liable. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.
Issue:
Whether the lower courts gravely erred in awarding moral damages, exemplary
damages and attorneys fees to Cordero.
Ruling:
YES. The Court ruled that petitioner can revoke respondents card without notice,
as was done. The subject card would not have been confiscated and cut had
respondent talked to petitioners representative and identified himself as the
genuine cardholder. As explained by respondent himself, he could have used his
card upon verification by the sales clerk of Watson that indeed he is the
authorized cardholder. That could have been accomplished had respondent
talked to petitioners representative, enabling the latter to determine that
respondent was indeed the true holder of the card. Clearly, no negligence which
breached the contract could have been attributed to petitioner. If at all, the cause
of respondents humiliation and embarrassment was his refusal to talk to
petitioners representative. It was thus safe to conclude that there was no

negligence on the part of petitioner and that, therefore, it cannot be held liable to
respondent for damages.
The petition was granted.

Main point: Elements of Quasi-delict

Damages suffered by the plaintiff;

Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts
he must respond; and
o
The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff
o
o

Proximate

Cause

Proximate Cause that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,

unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without
which the result would not have occurred. Proximate cause is determined by the
facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy
and precedent. (American Express International Inc. v. Cordero, G.R. No. 138550,
Oct. 14, 2005)