Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: After the Amsterdam incident that happened FACTS: The petitioner’s wife was suffering from a
involving the delay of American Express Card to approve debilitating ailment and with forewarning of her
his credit card purchases worth US $13,826.00 at the impending death, she expressed her wish to be laid to rest
Coster store, Pantaleon commenced a complaint for moral before Christmas day to spare her family of the long vigils
and exemplary damages before the RTC against American as it was almost Christmas. After his wife passed away,
Express. He said that he and his family experienced petitioner bought materials from herein private
inconvenience and humiliation due to the delays in credit respondents for the construction of her niche. Private
authorization. RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents however failed to deliver on agreed time and
Pantaleon. CA reversed the award of damages in favor of date despite repeated follow-ups. The niche was
Pantaleon, holding that AmEx had not breached its completed in the afternoon of the 27th of December, and
obligations to Pantaleon, as the purchase at Coster Barzaga's wife was finally laid to rest. However, it was two-
deviated from Pantaleon's established charge purchase and-a-half (2-1/2) days behind schedule.
pattern.
ISSUE: Was there delay in the performance of the private
ISSUE: respondent's obligation?
1. Whether or not AmEx had committed a breach of its RULING: Yes. Since the respondent was negligent and
obligations to Pantaleon. incurred delay in the performance of his contractual
obligations, the petitioner is entitled to be indemnified for
2. Whether or not AmEx is liable for damages. the damage he suffered as a consequence of the delay or
contractual breach. There was a specific time agreed upon
RULING: for the delivery of the materials to the cemetery. This is
clearly a case of non-performance of a reciprocal
1. Yes. The popular notion that credit card purchases are obligation, as in the contract of purchase and sale; the
approved “within seconds,” there really is no strict, legally petitioner had already done his part, which is the payment
determinative point of demarcation on how long must it of the price. It was incumbent upon respondent to
take for a credit card company to approve or disapprove a immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods
customer’s purchase, much less one specifically contracted otherwise delay would attach. An award of moral damages
upon by the parties. One hour appears to be patently is incumbent in this case as the petitioner has suffered so
unreasonable length of time to approve or disapprove a much.
credit card purchase. The culpable failure of AmEx herein
is not the failure to timely approve petitioner’s purchase,
but the more elemental failure to timely act on the same,
whether favorably or unfavorably. Even assuming that
AmEx’s credit authorizers did not have sufficient basis on
hand to make a judgment, we see no reason why it could
not have promptly informed Pantaleon the reason for the
delay, and duly advised him that resolving the same could
take some time.
Prudential is liable for damages for the fraudulent acts ISSUE: Can the collapse of the windmill be attributed to
committed by Malapit. Reinstating the insurance policy force majeure? Thus, extinguishing the liability of
cannot obliterate the injury inflicted. A contract of Tanguilig?
insurance creates reciprocal obligations for both insurer
and insured. Reciprocal obligations are those which arise RULING: YES. In order for a party to claim exemption from
from the same cause and in which each party is both a liability by reason of fortuitous event under Art 1174 of
debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation the Civil Code the event should be the sole and proximate
of one is dependent upon the obligation of the other. cause of the loss or destruction of the object of the
contract. In Nakpil vs. Court of Appeals, the S.C. held that 4
(2) NO. Due to the agreement to enter into a contract of requisites must concur that there must be:
insurance where Prudential promised to extend protection
to petitioner-insured against the risk insured, there was a (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation
debtor creditor relationship between the two parties. must be independent of the will of debtor
Under Article 1191, the injured party is given a choice
between fulfillment or rescission of the obligation in case (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or
one of the obligors fails to comply with what is incumbent unavoidable;
upon him. However, said article entitles the injured party
to payment of damages, regardless of whether he (c) the event be such to render it impossible for
demands fulfillment or rescission of the obligation. The the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
damages would be nominal because the insurance manner; and
company took steps to rectify the contract. There was also
no actual or substantial damage inflicted. Nominal (d) the debtor must be free from any
damages are "recoverable where a legal right is technically participation in or aggravation of the injury to
violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that the creditor.
has produced no actual present loss of any kind, or where
Tanguilig merely stated that there was a strong wind, and
there has been a breach of contract and no substantial
a strong wind in this case is not fortuitous, it was neither
injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be
unforeseeable nor unavoidable, places with strong winds
shown.”
are the perfect locations to put up a windmill, since it
needs strong winds for it to work.
FACTS: Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping is engaged in coastwise HELD: No, the petitioner would not have a cause of action
shipping and owns the cargo M/V Dadiangas Express. BJ for rescission against the respondent. The Supreme Court
Marthel is engaged in trading, marketing and selling ruled that in reciprocal obligations, as in a contract of sale,
various industrial commodities. Lorenzo Shipping ordered the general rule is that the fulfillment of the parties'
for the second time cylinder lines from the respondent respective obligations should be simultaneous. Hence, no
stating the term of payment to be 25% upon delivery, the demand is generally necessary because, once a party
balance payable in 5 bi-monthly equal installments, no fulfills his obligation and the other party does not fulfill his,
again stating the date of the cylinder’s delivery. It was the latter automatically incurs in delay. But when different
allegedly paid through postdated checks but the same was dates for performance of the obligations are fixed, the
dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Despite due default for each obligation must be determined by the
demands by the respondent, petitioner failed contending rules given in the first paragraph of the present article,
that time was of the essence in the delivery of the that is, the other party would incur in delay only from the
cylinders and that there was a delay since the respondent moment the other party demands fulfillment of the
committed said items “ within two months after receipt of former's obligation. Thus, even in reciprocal obligations, if
fir order”. RTC held respondents bound to the quotation the period for the fulfillment of the obligation is fixed,
with respect to the term of payment, which was reversed demand upon the obligee is still necessary before the
by the Court of appeals ordering appellee to pay appellant obligor can be considered in default and before a cause of
Php 954,000 plus interest. There was no delay since there action for rescission will accrue. The Complaint only
was no demand. alleged that petitioner made a "follow-up" upon
respondent, which, however, would not qualify as a
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent incurred delay in demand for the fulfillment of the obligation. Without a
performing its obligation under the contract of sale previous demand for the fulfillment of the obligation,
petitioner would not have a cause of action for rescission
RULING: By accepting the cylinders when they were against respondent as the latter would not yet be
delivered to the warehouse, petitioner waived the claimed considered in breach of its contractual obligation.
delay in the delivery of said items. Supreme Court held
that time was not of the essence. There having been no
failure on the part of the respondent to perform its
obligations, the power to rescind the contract is unavailing
to the petitioner. Petition is denied. Court of appeals
decision is affirmed.