TORTS
In other words, in order that the plaintiff may maintain an
BPI vs. CA
BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and RICARDO J. MARASIGAN, respondents.
September 25, 1998
FACTS: The case arose from the dishonor of the credit card of the
plaintiff Atty. Ricardo J. Marasigan by Café Adriatico, a business
establishment accredited with the defendant-appellate BPI Express Card
Corporation (BECC for brevity), on December 8, 1989 when the plaintiff
entertained some guests thereat.
Plaintiff was a lawyer by profession and was a complimentary
member of BECC from February 1988 to 1989. He was issued a credit
card. His membership was renewed for another year or until February
1990 and the credit limit was increased to P5,000.00 from P 3,000.00.
Their contractual relations went on smoothly until his statement of
account for October 1989 amounting to P8,987.84 was not paid in due
time. The plaintiff admitted having inadvertently failed to pay his
account for the said month because he was in Quezon province
attending to some professional and personal commitments. He was
informed by his secretary that defendant was demanding immediate
payment of his outstanding account, was requiring him to issue a check
for P15,000.00 which would include his future bills, and was threatening
to suspend his credit card.
Plaintiff sent a postdated check. On November 28, 1989,
defendant served plaintiff a letter by ordinary mail informing him of the
temporary suspension of the privileges of his credit card and the
inclusion of his account number in their Caution List. He was also told to
refrain from further use of his credit card to avoid any
inconvenience/embarrassment and that unless he settles his
outstanding account with the defendant within 5 days from receipt of
the letter, his membership will be permanently cancelled. There is no
showing that the plaintiff received this letter before December 8, 1989.
Confident that he has settled his account with the issuance of a
postdated check, he entertained his guests at Café Adriatico but his
card was dishonored.
Private respondent filed a complaint for damages before the RTC
of Makati. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent.
ISSUE: Whether private respondent can recover damages arising from
the cancellation of his credit card by petitioner credit card corporation
RULING: NO, private respondent cannot recover damages.
The petition is meritorious.
Under the terms and conditions of the credit card, it was stipulated
that Any CARD with outstanding balances unpaid after thirty (30) days
from original billing/statement date shall automatically be suspended
and those with accounts unpaid after sixty (60) days from said original
billing/statement date shall automatically be cancelled without prejudice
to BECC's right to suspend or cancel any CARD any time and for
whatever reason.
By his own admission private respondent no payment within thirty
days for his billing/statement dated 27 September 1989. Neither did he
make payment for his original billing/statement dated 27 October 1989.
Consequently as early as 28 October 1989 thirty days from the non-
payment of his billing dated 27 September 1989, petitioner corporation
could automatically suspend his credit card.
Settled is the doctrine that a check is only a substitute for money
and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself
operate as payment. Thus, the issuance by the private respondent of
the postdated check was not effective payment.
There is no legal and factual basis for private respondent's
assertion that in canceling the credit card of the private respondent,
petitioner abused its right under the terms and conditions of the
contract.
To find the existence of an abuse of right Article 19 the following
elements must be present (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is
exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
Time and again this Court has held that good faith is presumed
and the burden of proving bad faith is on the party alleging it. This
private respondent failed to do. In fact, the action of the petitioner
belies the existence of bad faith.
Private respondent suffered damages as a result of the
cancellation of his credit card. However, there is a material distinction
between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a
legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from
the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage
without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was
not the results of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the
consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law
affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which
does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are
often called damnum absque injuria.
Jazzie Sarona (3-SR)
action for the injuries of which he complaints, he must establish
that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the
defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the
plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The
underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that
an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there
must first be a breach of some duty and the imposition of liability
for that breach before damages may be awarded; and the breach
of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.
Therefore, the SC disagrees with the ruling of the respondent
court that the dishonor of the credit card of the private respondent
by Café Adriatico is attributable to petitioner for its willful or gross
neglect to inform the private respondent of the suspension of his
credit card, the unfortunate consequence of which brought social
humiliation and embarrassment to the private respondent.
Decision of the CA ordering petitioner to pay damages of
P100,000.00 as moral damages P50,000.00 as exemplary damages
and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees is SET ASIDE. Private
respondent directed to pay his outstanding obligations.
GLOBE MACKAY vs. CA
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C.
HENDRY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, respondents.
August 25, 1989
FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay in a dual capacity
as purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the
engineering operations manager. In 1972, GLOBE MACKAY
discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions
for which it lost several thousands of pesos.
According to Tobias, it was he who actually discovered the
anomalies and reported them to his superiors.
The day after Tobias made the report, Hendry, the then
Executive Vice-President and General Manager confronted Tobias
by stating that he was the number one suspect, and ordered him
to take a one week forced leave, not to communicate with the
office, to leave his table drawers open, and to leave the office
keys.
When he returned to work after a forced leave, Hendry went
up to him and called him a "crook" and a "swindler." Tobias was
then ordered to take a lie detector test. He was also instructed to
submit specimen of his handwriting, signature, and initials for
examination by the police investigators to determine his complicity
in the anomalies.
Manila police investigators submitted a report clearing Tobias
of participation in the anomalies.
Petitioners hired a private investigator who found Tobias
guilty but expressly stated that further investigation was still to be
conducted.
Nevertheless, Tobias was suspended from work preparatory
to the filing of criminal charges against him. Petitioned filed a
complaint for estafa. Subsequently, 5 other criminal complaints
were filed against Tobias, 4 of which were for estafa through
falsification of commercial document while the 5th was for
violation of Article 290 of the Revised Penal Code (Discovering
Secrets Through Seizure of Correspondence). All of the 6 criminal
complaints were dismissed by the fiscal.
Meanwhile, on January 17, 1973, Tobias received a notice
from petitioners that his employment has been terminated
effective December 13, 1972. Tobias filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. However, the Secretary of
Labor reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. During the pendency
of the appeal with the Office of the President, the parties entered
into a compromise agreement regarding the latter's complaint for
illegal dismissal.
Unemployed, Tobias sought employment with the Republic
Telephone Company (RETELCO). However, petitioner Hendry,
without being asked by RETELCO, wrote a letter to the latter
stating that Tobias was dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to
dishonesty.
Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged
unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners.
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Tobias ordering petitioners to
pay him P 80,000 as actual damages, P 200,000 as moral
damages, P 20,000 as exemplary damages, P 30,000 as attorney’s
fees and costs. CA affirmed RTC’s decision in toto.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages to
private respondent
RULING: Yes, the petitioners are liable for damages.
TORTS Jazzie Sarona (3-SR)
Petitioners claim that they did not violate any provision of law
since they were merely exercising their legal right to dismiss private
respondent. This does not, however, leave private respondent with no
relief because Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that:
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke, causing
damage to private respondent and for which the latter must now be
indemnified. An employer who harbors suspicions that an employee
has committed dishonesty might be justified in taking the appropriate
action such as ordering an investigation and directing the employee to
go on a leave. But the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias by
petitioners was certainly uncalled for.
The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be
confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects
flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer
is liable for damages to the employee. Petitioners clearly failed to
exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the
latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article
21 of the Civil Code.
The next tortious act committed by petitioners was the writing of a
letter to RETELCO. Because of the letter, Tobias failed to gain
employment with RETELCO and as a result of which, Tobias remained
unemployed for a longer period of time. For this further damage
suffered by Tobias, petitioners must likewise be held liable for
damages consistent with Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Petitioners, however, contend that they have a "moral, if not legal, duty
to forewarn other employers of the kind of employee the Tobias was."
Petitioners further claim that "it is the accepted moral and societal
obligation of every man to advise or warn his fellowmen of any threat
or danger to the latter's life, honor or property. And this includes
warning one's brethren of the possible dangers involved in dealing with,
or accepting into confidence, a man whose honesty and integrity is
suspect". These arguments, rather than justify petitioners' act, reveal a
seeming obsession to prevent Tobias from getting a job, even after
almost two years from the time Tobias was dismissed.
The right to institute criminal prosecutions can not be exercised
maliciously and in bad faith.
Petitioners next contend that the award of damages was
excessive. It must be underscored that petitioners have been guilty of
committing several actionable tortious acts. Considering the extent of
the damage wrought on Tobias, the Court finds that, contrary to
petitioners' contention, the amount of damages awarded to Tobias
was reasonable under the circumstances.
Yet, petitioners still insist that the award of damages was
improper, invoking the principle of damnum absque injuria. It is argued
that "the only probable actual damage that private respondent herein
could have suffered was a direct result of his having been dismissed
from his employment, which was a valid and legal act of the petitioners
herein."
According to the principle of damnum absque injuria,
damage or loss which does not constitute a violation of a legal
right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable. This principle
finds no application in this case. It bears repeating that even granting
that petitioners might have had the right to dismiss Tobias
from work, the abusive manner in which that right was
exercised amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners
must now be held liable. The damage incurred by Tobias was not
only in connection with the abusive manner in which he was dismissed
but was also the result of several other quasi-delictual acts committed
by petitioners.
In addition, moral damages are recoverable in the cases
mentioned in Article 21 of the Civil Code. The CA committed no error in
awarding moral damages to Tobias.
As to the exemplary damages, the Court has ruled that if gross
negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more
reason is its imposition justified when the act performed is deliberate,
malicious and tainted with bad faith. The nature of the wrongful acts
shown to have been committed by petitioners against Tobias is
sufficient basis for the award of exemplary damages to the latter.
Petition DENIED.