COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v.

CA (1993)
FACTS:
The private respondent in this case was the owner of a school canteen that sold soft drinks
(including Coke and Sprite) and other goods to both students and the public. One day she received some
complaints from parents that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks she sold contained fiber-like matter and other
foreign substances or particles. Testing done by the Department of Health confirmed the presence of these
substances. As a consequence of that discovery, her sales severely plummeted, eventually costing her her
job and shop.
She demanded payment of damages from the petitioner which the latter refused.
The petitioner anchored its arguments on failure of the private respondent to exhaust
administrative remedies and prescription. The private respondent contended that her complaint was one
for damages which did not involve administrative action and that her cause of action was based on an
injury to plaintiff’s right which can be brought within four years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil
Code.
The trial court granted the petitioner’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that the complaint was based
on a contract and not a quasi-delict.
The Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s orders, ruling that petitioner’s complaint was
based on a quasi-delict and not for a breach of warranty. The action had not prescribed yet.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the action for damages should be treated as one for breach of implied warranty
against hidden defects or merchantability or one for quasi-delict
RULING:
The action is one for quasi-delict.
The allegations in the complaint, that there was reckless and negligent manufacture of
“adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption” on the part of petitioner, supported
the public respondent’s conclusion that the cause of action was based on a quasi-delict.
The vendee’s remedies against a vendor with respect to the warranties against hidden defects of
or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in Article 1567 of the Civil Code.
The vendor could likewise be liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, and an action
based thereon may be brought by the vendee.
As a general rule, a pre-existing contract between the parties bars the applicability of the law on
quasi-delict. An exception to the rule is that the liability itself may be deemed to arise from quasi-delict,
such as the acts which break the contract.
The Court has repeatedly held in past cases that the existence of a contract between the parties
does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the other and the consequent recovery of
damages therefor.