Rosales v. People G.R. No.

173988

The petitioner Felina Rosaldes, a public school teacher in Grade 1, was charged and
found guilty of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. It appears from the records
that Felina Rosaldes willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maltreat her pupil MIchael
Ryan Gonzales, then a Garde 1 pupil, by pinching him on his thigh, helding him up by
his armpits, pushing him to the floor causing him to hit the desk and lose his
consciousness. Michael Ryan was entering in the classroom and accidentally
bumped Rosaldes’ knee who was sleeping on a bamboo sofa. Rosaldes asked
Michael to apologize but the student didn’t obey her. Rosaldes characterizes her
maltreatment as an act of discipline and contends that she did not deliberately
inflict the physical injuries suffered by Michael Ryan to maltreat or malign him in a
manner that would debase, demean or degrade his dignity.

Whether Felina Rosaldes thereby committed child abuse punishable under Republic
Act 7610 is the issue that this case must determine.

Yes, Felina Rosaldes committed child abuse punishable under Republic Act No.
7610. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7610 defines child abuse as the maltreatment,
whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following: (1)
Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment; (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) Unreasonable
deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) Failure to
immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
The crime charged against Rosaldes, therefore may consist of an act by deeds or by
words that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
as a human being. The violence and physical pain experienced by Michael Ryan had
been aggravated by an emotional trauma that caused him to stop going to school
altogether out of fear and compelling his parents to transfer him to another school.
These circumstances proved that Rosaldes beyond reasonable doubt was guilty of
child abuse by deeds that degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of
Michael Ryan as a human being.
Pantaleon v. AMEX G.R. No. 174269

Polo Pantaleon together with his family went on a guided European tour in October
1991 and while staying in Amsterdam, Mrs. Pantaleon decided to purchase some
diamond pieces worth a total of US$13,826.00. Upon presenting Pantaleon’s
American Express credit card to the sales clerk to pay for this purchase, a delay in
receiving an approval for the purchase happened and was also experienced on two
separate purchases of the family in United States before they return to the
Philippines. Upon the family’s arrival in the Philippines, Pantaleon sent a letter
through counsel to
American Express International, Inc. demanding an apology for the "inconvenience,
humiliation and embarrassment he and his family thereby suffered" for
respondent's refusal to provide credit authorization for the aforementioned
purchases. However, American Express International, Inc. responded by explaining
that the delay in Amsterdam was due to the amount involved – the charged
purchase of US$13,826.00 deviated from Pantaleon’s established charge purchase
pattern and refused to give an apology which led to Pantaleon instituting a
complaint for damages. In this case, American Express International, Inc is seeking
for the reversal of the Supreme Courts decision in finding AMEX guilty of culpable
delay.

Is American Express International, Inc. guilty of culpable delay?

No, the American Express International, Inc. is not guilty of culpable delay. Article
119 provides the requisites to hold a debtor guilty of culpable delay which are: (a)
that the obligation is demandable and liquidated; (b) the debtor delays
performance; and (c) the creditor judicially or extrajudicially requires the debtor’s
performance. The first requisite is no longer met because AMEX, by the express
terms of the credit card agreement, is not obligated to approve Pantaleon’s purchase
request. Pantaleon also failed to make the demand required by Article 1169 of the
Civil Code. Without a demandable obligation, there can be no finding of default.