Coca-Cola vs.

Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 293

By LLBe:LawLifeBuzzEtcetera

Facts:
Respondent Lydia Geronimo was the proprietess of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen,
engaged in the sale of soft drinks and other goods to the students of Kindergarten
Wonderland and to the public. On August 12, 1989, some parents of the students
complained that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks contained fiber-like matter and other
foreign substances. She discovered the presence of some fiber-like substances in the
contents of some unopened Coke bottles and a plastic matter in the contents of an
unopened Sprite bottle. The Department of Health informed her that the samples she
submitted are adulterated. Her sales of soft drinks plummeted, and not long after that, she
had to close shop. She became jobless and destitute. She demanded from the petitioner the
payment of damages but was rebuffed by it. She then filed a complaint before the RTC of
Dagupan City, which granted the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner, on the ground that
the complaint is based on contract, and not on quasi-delict, as there exists pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties. Thus, on the basis of Article 1571, in relation to
Article 1562, the complaint should have been filed within six months from the delivery of the
thing sold. The CA reversed the RTC decision and held that Geronimo’s complaint is one for
quasi-delict because of petitioner’s act of negligently manufacturing adulterated food items
intended to be sold for public consumption; and that the existence of contractual relations
between the parties does not absolutely preclude an action by one against the other for
quasi-delict arising from negligence in the performance of a contract. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the action for damages by the proprietess against the soft drinks
manufacturer should be treated as one for breach of implied warranty against hidden
defects, which must be filed within six months from the delivery of the thing sold, or one for
quasi-delict, which can be filed within four years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

Held:
The action in based on quasi-delict, therefore, it prescribes in four years. The allegations in
the complaint makes a reference to the reckless and negligent manufacture of “adulterated
food items intended to be sold for public consumption.” The vendee’s remedies are not
limited to those prescribed in Article 1567 of the Civil Code. The vendor could be liable for
quasi-delict under Article 2176, and an action based thereon may be brought by the vendee.
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. Liability for quasi-
delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations.