Diploma, Katrina

Due diligence of a Blind Person

Francisco vs Chemical Bulk Carriers Incorporated

7 sept. 2011
Carpio-Morales, J.
Petition for review of the Court of Appeals Decision reversing trial court decision and
ordering PET to pay RES actual damages

Antonio Francisco substitued by his heirs - plaintiffs-appellees
Chemical Bulk Carries Incorporated - defendants-appellants

Facts: Francisco was the owner and manager of a Caltex Station in Rizal. A certain Basca and his
companions came to his station and represented themselves as CBCI employees and offered to sell to
Francisco CBCI’s diesel fuel. Francisco checked his ID and therefore agreed to purchase the fuel under the 3
conditions that 1) Petron Cor should deliver such fuel at his business add w/c should be properly indicated in
Petron’s inovoice; 2) the delivery tank be sealed and 3) that Basca should issue a separate receipt to
Francisco. All of which were complied with in the 17 deliveries of fuel made to Francisco. CBCI sent a letter
demanding payment for such fuel that have been previously paid by CBCI which Francisco rejected. CBCI
claims that Petron sold fuel to the former but were delivered instead to Francisco. The latter should have
known that since only Petron, Caltex and Shell are authorized to sell and distribute petroleum products, the
fuel from Basca came from illegal acts. In PET’s defense, he was blind and asked his son to check the ID of
Basca where the latter said that CBCI was in immediate need of cash for salary of daily paid workers and
petty cash, thus the sale but they enjoyed a big credit line with Petron. He therefore acquired the diesel in
good faith and for value. Trial court ruled in favor of PET on the premise that he was a buyer in good faith
and CBCI should sue Basca for he was authorized to receive payment for the fuel. This was reversed by CA.
The sale by Basca was his personal act and does not bind CBCI. Pet should have verified with CBCI if Basca
had authority considering he had doubts to his authority. Moreover, the receipts were only improvised since
it was on a plain bond paper with no letterhead of CBCI. PET cant invoke estoppel because he is at fault for
choosing to iignore the tell-tale signs of petroleum diversion and not exercising prudence.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in finding Francisco not being able to exercise required due diligence of a blind

Ruling: Petition was denied. The required diligence of any physically disabled person, is the same degree of
care that a reasonable careful person who was the same physical disability would use. Such handicaps are
treated as part of the circumstances under which a reasonable person must act. HOWEVER, Francisco has
been in the business for 15 years and his blindness was not a hindrance for him to transact business until this
time. He failed to exercise the standard of conduct expercted of a person who is blind.Francisco did not
acquire any title over the diesel fuel since CBCI did not perform any act to authorize Basca to sell. Therefore,
CBCI was unlawfully deprived of its property and it may recover from Francisco even if he pleads good faith.