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 CFI’s 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.


LYDIA GERONIMO FACTS: Private respondent was the proprietress of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan City. On appeal. the CA annulled the orders of the RTC. She demanded damages from petitioner before the RTC which dismissed the same on motion by petitioner based on the ground of Prescription.15. She brought the said bottles for examination to DOH and it was found out that the soft drinks “are adulterated. INC. 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.” As a result." . 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. RULING: Petition Denied.2 15. vs. The SC agrees with the CA’s 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. her per day sales of soft drinks severely plummeted that she had to close her shop on 12 December 1989 for losses. In August 1989. 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. CA and MS.3 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES.

Upon appeal. Susan Chong. Respondent. Otherwise. Issue: Whether the lower courts gravely erred in awarding moral damages. the store manager. Inc. the person to whom the card is tendered must verify the identity of the holder. wife of respondent Noel Cordero. An extension charge card. The card was placed in the Inspect Airwarn Support System. Nilda Cordero. Noel picked up chocolate candies and handed his American Express extension charge card to the sales clerk to pay for his purchases. petitioner should have informed respondent that on November 1. According to the trial court.15. Nilda had to pay for the purchases using her own American Express charge card. While there. He prayed for the award of moral damages and exemplary damages. Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for damages against petitioner. 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. was issued an American Expresscharge card. as well as attorney’s fees as a result of the humiliation he suffered. asystem utilized by petitioner as a protection both for the company and the cardholders against the fraudulent use of their charge cards. As explained by respondent himself. as was done. Hence. a person in Hong Kong attempted to use a charge card bearing similar number to that of respondent’s card and that petitioner’s inexcusable failure to do so is the proximate cause of the “confiscation and cutting of respondent’s extension card which exposed the latter to public humiliation for which the petitioner should be held liable. If at all. That could have been accomplished had respondent talked to petitioner’s representative. Thereupon. informed respondent that she had to confiscate the card. This. It was thus safe to conclude that there was no . the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Clearly. the card is revoked or confiscated. no negligence which breached the contract could have been attributed to petitioner. the card is honored and the charges are approved.3 American Express International. The subject card would not have been confiscated and cut had respondent talked to petitioner’s representative and identified himself as the genuine cardholder. he could have used his card upon verification by the sales clerk of Watson that indeed he is the authorized cardholder. The Court ruled that petitioner can revoke respondent’s card without notice. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to Cordero. according to respondent. together with his family went on a three-day holiday trip to Hong Kong. enabling the latter to determine that respondent was indeed the true holder of the card. The group went to the Watson’s Chemist Shop. Once a card suspected of unauthorized use is placed in the system. vs Noel Cordero This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. 1991. caused him embarrassment and humiliation. was likewise issued to respondent Noel Cordero which he also signed. she cut respondent’sAmerican Express card in half with a pair of scissors. If the true identity of the card owner is established. the cause of respondent’s humiliation and embarrassment was his refusal to talk to petitioner’s representative. Ruling: YES.

v. Proximate cause is determined by the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. G. in natural and continuous sequence. 14. Oct. 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.negligence on the part of petitioner and that. it cannot be held liable to respondent for damages. policy and precedent. Cordero. No. (American Express International Inc. 2005) . unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Main point: Elements of Quasi-delict Damages suffered by the plaintiff. therefore. The petition was granted. Fault or negligence of the defendant.R. 138550. produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. common sense.