1 |Page

DIGESTED CASES IN TORTS: GENERAL PROVISIONS NO DIGEST FOR MEA Builders ___________________ Aznar vs CITIBANK GR 164273 March 28, 2007 Facts: Emmanuel B. Aznar (Aznar), a known businessman in Cebu, is a holder of a Preferred Master Credit Card (Mastercard) bearing number 5423-3920-07867012 issued by Citibank with a credit limit of P150,000.00. As he and his wife, Zoraida, planned to take their two grandchildren, Melissa and Richard Beane, on an Asian tour, Aznar made a total advance deposit of P485,000.00 with Citibank with the intention of increasing his credit limit toP635,000.00. With the use of his Mastercard, Aznar purchased plane tickets to Kuala Lumpur for his group worth P237,000.00. On July 17, 1994, Aznar, his wife and grandchildren left Cebu for the said destination. Aznar claims that when he presented his Mastercard in some establishments in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the same was not honored. And when he tried to use the same in Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency (Ingtan Agency) in Indonesia to purchase plane tickets to Bali, it was again dishonored for the reason that his card was blacklisted by Citibank. Such dishonor forced him to buy the tickets in cash. He further claims that his humiliation caused by the denial of his card was aggravated when Ingtan Agency spoke of swindlers trying to use blacklisted cards. Aznar and his group returned to the Philippines on August 10, 1994. Aznar filed a motion to re-raffle the case alleging impartiality of the president judge. The new judge ruled in favor of Aznar. On appeal, CA ruled in favor of CITIBANK and held that Aznar had no personal knowledge of the blacklisting of his card and only presumed the same when it was dishonored in certain establishments; that such dishonor is not sufficient to prove that his card was blacklisted; and that Exh G is an electronic document which must be authenticated pursuant to Section 2 Rule 5 on the Rules on Electronic Evidence or under Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, by anyone who saw the documents executed or written. Aznar failed to prove the authenticity of Exh G. Issue: Whether or not Aznar has established his claim against CITIBANK. Held: ARTICLE 2200 Aznar failed to prove with a preponderance of evidence that CITIBANK blacklisted his card or place the same on the hot list. Aznar in his testimony admitted that he had no personal knowledge that his card was blacklisted by CITIBANK and only presumed such fact from the dishonor of his card. It is settled that in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, 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 before damages may be awarded and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.57 It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish or serious anxiety as a result of the actuations of the other party. It is also required that a culpable act or omission was factually established, that proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is shown as the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the claimant and that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Arts. 221958 and 222059 of the Civil Code.60 In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.61 While the Court commiserates with Aznar for whatever undue embarrassment he suffered when his credit card was dishonored by Ingtan Agency, especially when the agencys personnel insinuated that he could be a swindler trying to use blacklisted cards, the Court cannot grant his present petition as he failed to show by preponderance of evidence that Citibank breached any obligation that would make it answerable for said suffering. Petition denied. _____________________ NO DIGEST FOR ROBLEZA vs CA ______________ ACTUAL /COMPENSATORY ( ART. 2219-2215) ARTICLE 2199 NO DIGEST FOR HICKS VS MANILA __________________

2 |Page
However, a negligent employee of RCPI who received the message, instead of placing it in a card appropriate for the occasion, typed it in a Happy Birthday Card and enclosed it in a Christmas gram envelope. The employees flimsy and preposterous excuse was: they run out of social condolence cards. This clumsy mistake by the RPPI employee was very disheartening to Mr. and Mrs. A. They felt that RCPI was mocking the death of their beloved mother. The incident became a joke to many of their friends and acquaintances, even among their relatives. This has caused much embarrassment and distress to both the senders (Mr. and Mrs. B) and the addressees (Mr. and Mrs. A) of the telegram. Instead of sending words of comfort and concern, RCPI intensified the sorrow that they were feeling at that time. Mr. B even suffered hypertension and was hospitalized for three days. Because of this, they sued RCPI for damages. Supreme Court Lessons for RCPI: 1. If you run out of social condolence card, use instead the ordinary form, just plain and simple, without decorations and embellishments, and return the excess payment for the desired but unavailable form. 2. Your business of receiving and transmitting telegraphic messages is imbued with public interest. By offering your services, you undertake to transmit these messages accurately as ordered by the senders. So please exercise diligence in doing your job! 3. You (RCPI) cannot be excused for the negligence of your employees. As a corporation, you can act only through your employees. Therefore, the acts of your employees in receiving and transmitting messages are also your acts. And it would be unfair for the general public for you to just wash hands and deny liability. _______________ NO DIGEST FOR PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ

NO DIGEST FPR MARIKINA AUTOLINE ________________ RCPI vs. CA Facts: 24th of January 1983 private respondent spouses sent a telegram of condolence to their cousins through the herein petioner RCPI. The telegram was in perfect resemblance as to what was intended by the spouses however, it was written on a birthday card and was sealed in on a Christmasgram envelope. The spouses contended there was a breach of contract on the part of the RCPI, they in turn filed complaint on the trial court where it rendered its decision in favor of the spouses whereas, it was appealed in the CA where also the judgment in the lower court was affirmed in toto. Thus, the RCPI came to this Court for relief contending issues that the CA erred in rendering such judgment. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner committed a breach of contract? Whether or not the RCPI are held liable for damages? Held: The Court agrees with the appellate court in its decision and per endorsement of the trial courts findings that the RCPI as a corporation dealing with telecommunication are engaged in public interest and therefore rests in their shoulders an obligation to serve the public with care and without negligence. The reason of shortage in their production of the appropriate envelope is of no value to merit for it is their duty to have produced such. The negligence committed is evidentially sufficient to recover damages because the spouses suffered from ridicule amongst the people who have come to have knowledge of such activity. _________________________ RCPI VS CA Happy Condolence? Tagged Under : culpa aquiliana, culpa contractual, diligence, liability of employers for negligent acts of employees, quasi-delict, Torts and damages In 1991, Mr. and Mrs. A sent a telegram of condolence through RCPI to their cousin Mr. B for the death of Mrs. Bs mother. The message expressing their deepest sympathy and concern, was addressed to Mr. and Mrs. B, it reads: MR. & MRS. B MAY GOD GIVE YOU COURAGE AND STRENGTH TO BEAR YOUR LOSS. OUR DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY.