midterms batch 1 cases-pantaleon, pnr and fil-estate cases

7/25/2019 Midterms Batch 1 Cases-pantaleon, Pnr and Fil-estate Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/midterms-batch-1-cases-pantaleon-pnr-and-fil-estate-cases 1/5

G.R. No. 174269 May 8, 2009

POLO S. PANTALEON, Petitioner,

vs.

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner Polo Pantaleon, his wife, Julialinda, along with

their daughter and son joined an escorted tour of Western

Europe in October of 1991. On the last da of the tour, the

group arrived at the !oster "ia#ond $ouse in %#sterda#

around &'() a.#. *he visit to !oster should end b 9'()

a.#. to allow enough ti#e to still have a guided cit tour of

%#sterda#.

%fterwards, the group was led to the store+s showroo# to

allow the# to select ite#s for purchase. rs. Pantaleon

decided to bu a -. /arat dia#ond, as well as a pendant

and a chain, totaling 01(,&-.)). *o pa for said

purchases, Pantaleon presented his %#erican E2press

credit card together with his passport to the !oster sales

cler/. *his occurred at around 9'1 a.#., or 1 #inutes

before the tour group was slated to depart fro# the store.

1) #inutes later, the store cler/ infor#ed Pantaleon thathis %#e2!ard had not et been approved. %s he was

alread worried about further inconveniencing the tour

group, Pantaleon as/ed the store cler/ to cancel the sale

but the store #anager as/ed plainti3 to wait a few #ore

#inutes.

%t around 1)')) a.#, !oster decided to release the ite#s

even without respondent+s approval of the purchase. *he

spouses Pantaleon returned to the bus. *heir o3ers of

apolog were #et b their tour#ates with ston silence.

*he tour group+s visible irritation was aggravated when the

tour guide announced that the cit tour of %#sterda# was

to be canceled due to lac/ of re#aining ti#e, as the had

to catch a (')) p.#. ferr at !alais, 4elgiu# to 5ondon.

rs. Pantaleon ended up weeping, while her husband had

to ta/e a tran6uili7er to cal# his nerves.

8pon their return to anila, Pantaleon sent a letter through

counsel to the respondent, de#anding an apolog for the

inconvenience, hu#iliation and e#barrass#ent he and

his fa#il su3ered for respondent+s refusal to provide

credit authori7ation for said purchases.

:n response, respondent sent a letter stating that the dela

in authori7ing the purchase fro# !oster was attributable to

the circu#stance that the charged purchase of 8;

01(,&-.)) was out of the usual charge purchase pattern

established. ;ince respondent refused to accede to

Pantaleon+s de#and for an apolog, the aggrieved

cardholder instituted an action for da#ages with the

Regional *rial !ourt <R*!= of a/ati !it.

*he R*! rendered a decision in favor of Pantaleon.

Respondent >led a ?otice of %ppeal, which was given due

course b the R*!. *he !% rendered a decision reversing

the award of da#ages Pantaleon and holding that

respondent had not breached its obligations to petitioner.

$ence, this petition.

ISSUES:

<1= Whether or not respondent had co##itted a breach of

its obligations to Pantaleon@ AE;

<-= Whether or not the respondent is liable for da#ages to

Pantaleon under %rticle -1 of the ?ew !ivil !ode@ AE;

RULING:

<1= T! "#$%#&' o( )! )*%a+ o-*) a/+y !')a+%'!$

)a) )! )a*$%#!'' o# )! /a*) o( *!'/o#$!#) %#

a)%#& o# /!)%)%o#!*' /-*a'! a) Co')!* $%$

o#')%)-)! -+/a+! $!+ay o# %)' /a*) %# o/+y%#&

%) %)' o+%&a)%o# )o a) /*o/)+y o# %)' -')o!*'

/-*a'! *!3-!'), !)!* '- a)%o# ! (ao*a+!

o* -#(ao*a+!.

5o) /a*)%!' /*!'!#)!$ !%$!#! )a) )! /*o!''%#&

a#$ a//*oa+ o( /+a%#)%' a*&! /-*a'! a) )!

Co')!* %ao#$ o-'! a' ay !yo#$ )! #o*a+

a//*oa+ )%! o( a a))!* o( '!o#$'. Plainti3

testi>ed that he presented his %#e2!ard to the sales cler/

at !oster, at 9'1 a.#. and b the ti#e he had to leave the

store at 1)') a.#., no approval had et been received.

:n fact, the !redit %uthori7ation ;ste# <!%;= record of

defendant at Phoeni2 %#e2 shows that defendant+s

%#sterda# oBce received the re6uest to approveplainti3+s charge purchase at 9'-) a.#., %#sterda# ti#e

and that the defendant relaed its approval to !oster at

1)'(& a.#., %#sterda# ti#e, or a total ti#e lapse of one

hour and C1&D #inutes.

T! Co-*) %' o#%#!$ )a) $!(!#$a#)' $!+ay

o#')%)-)!'; *!a o( %)' o#)*a)-a+ o+%&a)%o# )o

a) o# %' -'! o( )! a*$ a*oa$ %) '/!%a+

a#$+%#&. <!itations o#itted=

?otwithstanding the popular notion that credit card

purchases are approved within seconds, there reall is no

strict, legall deter#inative point of de#arcation on how

long #ust it ta/e for a credit card co#pan to approve or

disapprove a custo#er+s purchase, #uch less one

speci>call contracted upon b the parties. <!), o#! o-*

a//!a*' )o ! a# a(-++y +o#&, /a)!#)+y

-#*!a'o#a+! +!#&) o( )%! )o a//*o! o*

$%'a//*o! a *!$%) a*$ /-*a'!. I) %' +o#& !#o-&

)%! (o* )! -')o!* )o a+= )o a a#= a =%+o!)!*

aay, %)$*a o#!y o!* )! o-#)!*, a#$ *!)-*#

)o )! ')o*!.



T! -+/a+! (a%+-*! o( *!'/o#$!#) !*!%# %' #o) )!

(a%+-*! )o )%!+y a//*o! /!)%)%o#!*' /-*a'!, -)

)! o*! !+!!#)a+ (a%+-*! )o )%!+y a) o# )!

'a!, !)!* (ao*a+y o* -#(ao*a+y. E!#

a''-%#& )a) *!'/o#$!#)' *!$%) a-)o*%>!*' $%$

#o) a! '-?%!#) a'%' o# a#$ )o a=! a

@-$&!#), ! '!! #o *!a'o# y *!'/o#$!#) o-+$

#o) a! /*o/)+y %#(o*!$ /!)%)%o#!* )! *!a'o#

(o* )! $!+ay, a#$ $-+y a$%'!$ % )a) *!'o+%#&

)! 'a! o-+$ )a=! 'o! )%!. I# )a) ay,

/!)%)%o#!* o-+$ a! a$ %#(o*!$ a'%' o#

!)!* o* #o) )o /-*'-! )! )*a#'a)%o# a) Co')!*,

&%!# )! a))!#$%#& %*-')a#!'. I#')!a$,

/!)%)%o#!* a' +!() -#o(o*)a+y $a#&+%#& %# )!

%++y a-)-# %#$' %# a (o*!%&# +a#$ a#$ 'oo#

(o*!$ )o o#(*o#) )! *a) o( (o*!%&# (o+=.

<-= oral da#ages avail in cases of breach of contract

where the defendant acted fraudulentl or in bad faith,

and the court should >nd that under the circu#stances,

such da#ages are due.

*he dela co##itted b defendant was clearl attended

b unjusti>ed neglect and bad faith, since it alleges to

have consu#ed #ore than one hour to si#pl go over

plainti3+s past credit histor with defendant, his pa#ent

record and his credit and ban/ references, when all such

data are alread stored and readil available fro# its

co#puter. *his !ourt also ta/es note of the fact that there

is nothing in plainti3+s billing histor that would warrant

the i#prudent suspension of action b defendant in

processing the purchase. "efendant+s witness Jauri6ue

testi>ed that there were no delin6uencies in plainti3+s

account.

I) 'o-+$ ! !/a'%>!$ )a) )! *!a'o# y

/!)%)%o#!* %' !#)%)+!$ )o $aa&!' %' #o) '%/+y

!a-'! *!'/o#$!#) %#-**!$ $!+ay, -) !a-'! )!

$!+ay, (o* % -+/a%+%)y +%!' -#$!* A*)%+! 1170,

+!$ )o )! /a*)%-+a* %#@-*%!' -#$!* A*)%+! 2217 o(

)! C%%+ Co$! (o* % o*a+ $aa&!' a*!

*!-#!*a)%!.

Mo*a+ $aa&!' $o #o) aa%+ )o 'oo)! )! /+a%#)' o(

)! '%/+y %/a)%!#), 'o )%' $!%'%o# 'o-+$ #o) !

a-'! (o* *!+%!( (o* )o'! o )%! )! +!#&) o(

)!%* *!$%) a*$ )*a#'a)%o#' %) a ')o/a). T!

'o!a) -#-'-a+ a))!#$%#& %*-')a#!' )o )!

/-*a'! a) Co')!* )a) )!*! a' a $!a$+%#! (o*

)! o/+!)%o# o( )a) /-*a'! y /!)%)%o#!*

!(o*! a#y $!+ay o-+$ *!$o-#$ )o )! %#@-*y o( %'

'!!*a+ )*a!+%#& o/a#%o#' &a! *%'! )o )!

o*a+ 'o=, !#)a+ a#&-%', '!*%o-' a#B%!)y,

o-#$!$ (!!+%#&' a#$ 'o%a+ -%+%a)%o# '-')a%#!$

y )! /!)%)%o#!*, a' o#+-$!$ y )! RTC. To'!

%*-')a#!' a*! (a%*+y -#-'-a+, a#$ 'o-+$ #o)

&%! *%'! )o a &!#!*a+ !#)%)+!!#) (o* $aa&!'-#$!* a o*! -#$a#! '!) o( (a)'.

*here is no hardandfast rule in deter#ining what would

be a fair and reasonable a#ount of #oral da#ages,

however, it #ust be co##ensurate to the loss or injur

su3ered. Petitioner+s original praer for P,))),))).)) for

#oral da#ages is e2cessive under the circu#stances, and

the a#ount awarded b the trial court of P)),))).)) in

#oral da#ages #ore see#l. 5i/ewise, we dee#

e2e#plar da#ages available under the circu#stances,

and the a#ount of P()),))).)) appropriate. *here is

si#ilarl no cause though to disturb the deter#ined award

of P1)),))).)) as attorne+s fees, and P&,-((.)1 as

e2penses of litigation.

G.R. No. 169891 No!!* 2, 2006

PILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILA<S, Petitioner,

vs.

ETEL 5RUNT< a#$ DUAN MANUEL M. GARCIA,

Respondents.

FACTS:

Rhonda 4runt, daughter of respondent Ethel 4runt,

ca#e to the Philippines for a visit so#eti#e in Januar

19&). Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino

host Juan anuel . Garcia, traveled to 4aguio !it on

board a ercedes 4en7 sedan with plate nu#ber F8 H99,

driven b Rodolfo 5. ercelita.

%t #idnight on Januar -, 19&), P?R *rain ?o. *H1,

driven b %lfonso Rees, was on its wa to *utuban, etro

anila fro# 5a 8nion.

4 -')) a.#., Rhonda 4runt, Garcia and ercelita were

alread approaching the railroad crossing at 4aranga

Ri7al, oncada, *arlac. ercelita, driving at appro2i#atel

H) /#Ihr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad

trac/ up ahead and that the were about to collide with

P?R *rain ?o. *H1.



ercelita was instantl /illed when the ercedes 4en7

s#ashed into the train. Rhonda 4runt was pronounced

dead after ten #inutes fro# arrival in !entral 5u7on

"octor+s $ospital. Garcia su3ered severe head injuries.

Ethel 4runt sent a de#and letter to the P?R de#anding

pa#ent of actual, co#pensator, and #oral da#ages, as

a result of her daughter+s death. When P?R did not

respond, Ethel 4runt and Garcia, >led a co#plaint for

da#ages against the P?R before the R*! of anila.

*he alleged that the death of ercelita and Rhonda

4runt, as well as the phsical injuries su3ered b Garcia,

were the direct and pro2i#ate result of the gross and

rec/less negligence of P?R in not providing the necessar

e6uip#ent at the railroad crossing in 4aranga Ri7al,

unicipalit of oncada, *arlac. *he pointed out that

there was no agbar or red light signal to warn #otorists

who were about to cross the railroad trac/, and that the

ag#an or switch#an was onl e6uipped with a hand

ashlight.

Plainti3s li/ewise averred that P?R failed to supervise its

e#ploees in the perfor#ance of their respective tas/s

and duties, #ore particularl the pilot and operator of the

train. *he praed for the pa#ent of the da#ages.

:n its %nswer, P?R clai#ed that it e2ercised the diligence of

a good father of a fa#il not onl in the selection but also

in the supervision of its e#ploees. :t stressed that it hadthe right of wa on the railroad crossing in 6uestion, and

that it has no legal dut to put up a bar or red light signal

in an such crossing.

:t insisted that there were ade6uate, visible, and clear

warning signs strategicall posted on the sides of the road

before the railroad crossing. I) o-#)!*!$ )a) )!

%!$%a)! a#$ /*oB%a)! a-'! o( )! a%$!#) a'

M!*!+%)a' #!&+%&!#!, a#$ )a) ! a$ )! +a')

+!a* a#! )o ao%$ )! a%$!#). T! $*%!*

$%'*!&a*$!$ )! a*#%#& '%&#', )! %')+! +a')' o(

)! o#o%#& )*a%# a#$ )! a'+%&) '%&#a+' )o ')o/&%!# y )! &-a*$.

%fter trial on the #erits, the R*! rendered its "ecision in

favor of plainti3s. %ggrieved, the P?R appealed the case to

the !%, which aBr#ed the >ndings of the R*! as to the

negligence of the P?R.

ISSUES:

<1= Whether or not ercelita was guilt of contributor

negligence@

<-= Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance is

applicable in the case at bar@

RULING:

<1= A' )o !)!* o* #o) M!*!+%)a a' &-%+)y o(

o#)*%-)o*y #!&+%&!#!, ! a&*!! %) /!)%)%o#!*.

Co#)*%-)o*y #!&+%&!#! %' o#$-) o# )! /a*) o(

)! %#@-*!$ /a*)y, o#)*%-)%#& a' a +!&a+ a-'! )o

)! a* ! a' '-!*!$, % (a++' !+o )!

')a#$a*$ )o % ! %' *!3-%*!$ )o o#(o* (o* %'

o# /*o)!)%o#.

*o hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it

#ust be shown that he perfor#ed an act that brought

about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an

i#pending danger to health and bod.

*o prove contributor negligence, it is still necessar to

establish a causal lin/, although not pro2i#ate, between

the negligence of the part and the succeeding injur. :n a

legal sense, negligence is contributor onl when it

contributes pro2i#atel to the injur, and not si#pl a

condition for its occurrence.

I) a' !')a+%'!$ )a) M!*!+%)a a' )!# $*%%#&

)! M!*!$!' 5!#> a) a '/!!$ o( 70 =* a#$, %#

(a), a$ o!*)a=!# a !%+! a (! ya*$' !(o*!

*!a%#& )! *a%+*oa$ )*a=. M!*!+%)a 'o-+$ #o)

a! $*%!# )! a* )! ay ! $%$. o!!*, %+!%' a)' o#)*%-)!$ )o )! o++%'%o#, )!y

#!!*)!+!'' $o #o) #!&a)! /!)%)%o#!*' +%a%+%)y.

Pursuant to %rticle -1H9 of the ?ew !ivil !ode, the onl

e3ect such contributor negligence could have is to

#itigate liabilit.

<-= A' )o !)!* o* #o) )! $o)*%#! o( +a') +!a*

a#! %' a//+%a+!, ! *-+! %# )! #!&a)%!.

*he doctrine of last clear chance states that where both

parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is

appreciabl later than that of the other, or where it is

i#possible to deter#ine whose fault or negligence caused

the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunit to

avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the

loss.

*he antecedent negligence of plainti3 does not preclude

hi# fro# recovering da#ages caused b the supervening

negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to

prevent the i#pending har# b the e2ercise of due

diligence.

T! /*oB%a)! a-'! o( )! %#@-*y a%#& !!#

!')a+%'!$ )o ! )! #!&+%&!#! o( /!)%)%o#!*, !

o+$ )a) )! ao! $o)*%#! "#$' #o a//+%a)%o# %#

)! %#')a#) a'!.



ON AMAGES:

%s to the a#ount of da#ages awarded, a #odi>cation of

the sa#e is in order, speci>call on the award of actual

and #oral da#ages in the aggregate a#ount of

P1,))),))).)).

%ctual or co#pensator da#ages are those awarded in

order to co#pensate a part for an injur or loss he

su3ered. *he arise out of a sense of natural justice,

ai#ed at repairing the wrong done. *o be recoverable, the

#ust be dul proved with a reasonable degree of certaint.

% court cannot rel on speculation, conjecture, or

guesswor/ as to the fact and a#ount of da#ages, but

#ust depend upon co#petent proof that the have

su3ered, and on evidence of the actual a#ount thereof.Respondents, however, failed to present evidence for such

da#agesK hence, the award of actual da#ages cannot be

sustained.

%s the heirs of Rhonda 4runt undeniabl incurred

e2penses for the wa/e and burial of the latter, we dee# it

proper to award te#perate da#ages in the a#ount of

P-,))).)) pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. *his is in

lieu of actual da#ages as it would be unfair for the victi#+s

heirs to get nothing, despite the death of their /in, for the

reason alone that the cannot produce receipts.

*he relatives of the victi# who incurred phsical injuries in

a 6uasidelict are not proscribed fro# recovering #oral

da#ages in #eritorious cases. We, therefore, sustain the

award of #oral da#ages in favor of the heirs of Rhonda

4runt.

oral da#ages are not punitive in nature, but are

designed to co#pensate and alleviate in so#e wa thephsical su3ering, #ental anguish, fright, serious an2iet,

bes#irched reputation, wounded feelings, #oral shoc/,

social hu#iliation, and si#ilar injur unjustl caused a

person. %lthough incapable of pecuniar co#putation,

#oral da#ages #ust nevertheless be so#ehow

proportional to and in appro2i#ation of the su3ering

inicted.

!onsidering the circu#stances attendant in this case, we

>nd that an award of P)),))).)) as #oral da#ages to

the heirs of Rhonda 4runt is proper. :n view of recent

jurisprudence, inde#nit of P),))).)) for the death of

Rhonda 4runt and attorne+s fees a#ounting to

P),))).)) is li/ewise proper.

*he award of actual da#ages is deleted, and in lieu

thereof, te#perate da#ages of P-,))).)) is awarded to

the heirs of Rhonda 4runt. *he award of #oral da#ages is

reduced to P)),))).)).

SECON IISION FILHESTATE PROPERTIES, INC.,

P!)%)%o#!*, ' SPOUSES GONALO a#$ CONSUELO

GO, R!'/o#$!#)'.

G.R. ?o. 11L

FACTS:

On "ece#ber -9, 199, petitioner FilEstate Properties,

:nc. <FilEstate= entered into a contract to sell a

condo#iniu# unit to respondent spouses Gon7alo and

!onsuelo Go.

*he spouses paid a total of P(,L(9,))).)H of the full

contract price set at P(,-),))).)). 4ecause petitioner

failed to develop the condo#iniu# project, the spouses

de#anded the refund of the a#ount the paid, plus

interest. *he petitioner did not refund the spouses, thus

the latter >led a co#plaint against petitioner before the

$ousing and 5and 8se Regulator 4oard <$58R4=.

I# a#'!*, /!)%)%o#!* +a%!$ )a) *!'/o#$!#)' a$

#o a-'! o( a)%o# '%#! )! $!+ay %# )!

o#')*-)%o# o( )! o#$o%#%- a' a-'!$ y )!"#a#%a+ *%'%' )a) %) )! A'%a# *!&%o#, a (o*)-%)o-'

!!#) o!* % /!)%)%o#!* a$ #o o#)*o+.

*he $58R4 ruled in favor of the spouses Go. :t ratiocinated

that )! A'%a# "#a#%a+ *%'%' )a) *!'-+)!$ %# )!

$!/*!%a)%o# o( )! /!'o %' #o) a (o*)-%)o-' !!#) a'

a#y -)-a)%o# %# )! a+-! o( )! /!'o %' a $a%+y

o-**!#! % %' (o*!'!!a+! a#$ %)' $!+!)!*%o-'

!!)' ao%$!$ y !o#o% !a'-*!'.

*he $58R4 went on to sa that when petitioner

discontinued the develop#ent of its condo#iniu# project,

it failed to ful>ll its contractual obligations to the spouses.

%nd following %rticle 1LHC(D of the !ivil !ode, upon

perfection of the contract, the parties, here the spouses

Go, #a de#and perfor#ance.

8nder %rticle 1191CLD of the sa#e code, should one of the

parties, in this instance FilEstate, fail to co#pl with the



obligation, the aggrieved part #a choose between

ful>ll#ent or rescission of the obligation, with da#ages in

either case. :nas#uch as FilEstate could no longer ful>ll its

obligation, the spouses Go #a as/ for rescission of the

contract with da#ages.

ISSUE:

<1= Whether or not the %sian >nancial crisis is considered a

fortuitous event in the case at bar@ NO

RULING:

<1= We cannot generali7e that the %sian >nancial crisis in

199H was unforeseeable and beond the control of a

business corporation.

:t is unfortunate that petitioner apparentl #et with

considerable diBcult e.g. increase cost of #aterials and

labor, even before the scheduled co##ence#ent of its

real estate project as earl as 199. o!!*, a *!a+

!')a)! !#)!*/*%'! !#&a&!$ %# )! /*!H'!++%#& o(

o#$o%#%- -#%)' %' o#!$!$+y a a')!* %#/*o@!)%o#' o# oo$%)%!' a#$ -**!#y

o!!#)' a#$ -'%#!'' *%'='.

T! -)-a)%#& o!!#) o( )! P%+%//%#! /!'o %#

)! (o*!%&# !Ba#&! a*=!) %' a# !!*y$ay

o-**!#!, a#$ -)-a)%o#' %# -**!#y !Ba#&!

*a)!' a//!# !!*y$ay, )-', #o) a# %#')a#! o(

a'o (o*)-%)o.

midterms batch 1 cases-pantaleon, pnr and fil-estate cases

Documents