Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
* SECOND DIVISION.
552
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
553
554
TINGA, J.:
The petitioner, lawyer Polo Pantaleon, his wife
Julialinda, daughter Anna Regina and son Adrian Roberto,
joined an escorted tour of Western Europe organized by
Trafalgar Tours of Europe, Ltd., in October of 1991. The
tour group arrived in Amsterdam in the afternoon of 25
October 1991, the second to the last day of the tour. As the
group had arrived late in the city, they failed to engage in
any sight-seeing. Instead, it was agreed upon that they
would start early the next day to see the entire city before
ending the tour.
The following day, the last day of the tour, the group
arrived at the Coster Diamond House in Amsterdam
around 10 minutes before 9:00 a.m. The group had agreed
that the visit to Coster should end by 9:30 a.m. to allow
enough time to take in a guided city tour of Amsterdam.
The group was ushered into Coster shortly before 9:00 a.m.,
and listened to a lecture on the art of diamond polishing
that lasted for around ten minutes.1 Afterwards, the group
was led to the store’s showroom to allow them to select
items for purchase. Mrs. Pantaleon had already planned to
purchase even before the tour
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
_______________
1 Id., at p. 747.
555
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
4 Id., at p. 20.
556
_______________
557
_______________
8 Id., at p. 331.
9 Id., at pp. 332-333.
10 Id., at p. 332.
11 Docketed as Civil Case No. 92-1665. Id., at pp. 335-340.
12 Id., at p. 339.
13 Penned by Judge Francisco Donato Villanueva; id., at pp. 92-110.
14 Id., at pp. 348-351.
15 Id., at pp. 360-362.
16 Decision penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice E.J.
Asuncion, concurred by Associate Justices J. Mendoza and A. Tayag.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
558
_______________
17 Rollo, p. 80.
559
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
_______________
18 See, e.g., Selegna Management v. UCPB, G.R. No. 165662, 3 May
2006, 489 SCRA 125.
19 A. Tolentino, IV Civil Code of the Philippines (1991 ed.), at p. 108.
20 See, e.g., Pacific Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 72275, 13 November 1991, 203 SCRA 496; Molino v. Security Diners
International Corp., G.R. No. 136780, 16 August 2001, 358 SCRA 363.
21 See, e.g., Citibank, N.A. v. Cabamongan, G.R. No. 146918, 2 May
2006, 488 SCRA 517.
560
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
“As to the first issue, both parties have testified that normal
approval time for purchases was a matter of seconds.
Plaintiff testified that his personal experience with the use of the
card was that except for the three charge purchases subject of
561
A. Yes, Ma’am.
Both parties likewise presented evidence that the processing
and approval of plaintiff’s charge purchase at the Coster Diamond
House was way beyond the normal approval time of a “matter of
seconds.”
Plaintiff testified that he presented his AmexCard to the sales
clerk at Coster, at 9:15 a.m. and by the time he had to leave the
store at 10:05 a.m., no approval had yet been received. In fact, the
Credit Authorization System (CAS) record of defendant at
Phoenix Amex shows that defendant’s Amsterdam office received
the request to approve plaintiff’s charge purchase at 9:20 a.m.,
Amsterdam time or 01:20, Phoenix time, and that the defendant
relayed its approval to Coster at 10:38 a.m., Amsterdam time, or
2:38, Phoenix time, or a total time lapse of one hour and [18]
minutes. And even then, the approval was conditional as it
directed in computerese [sic] “Positive Identification of Card
holder necessary further charges require bank information due to
high exposure. By Jack Manila.”
The delay in the processing is apparent to be undue as shown
from the frantic successive queries of Amexco Amsterdam which
reads: “US$13,826. Cardmember buying jewels. ID seen. Advise
how long will this take?” They were sent at 01:33, 01:37, 01:40,
01:45, 01:52 and 02:08, all times Phoenix. Manila Amexco could
be unaware of the need for speed in resolving the charge purchase
referred to it, yet it sat on its hand, unconcerned.
x x x
To repeat, the Credit Authorization System (CAS) record on
the Amsterdam transaction shows how Amexco Netherlands
viewed the delay as unusually frustrating. In sequence expressed
in Phoenix time from 01:20 when the charge purchased was
referred for authorization, defendants own record shows:
562
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
_______________
563
_______________
23 Id., at p. 101.
564
_______________
565
_______________
566
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
1/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 587
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016885aba4c0742cba7e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16