MANDARIN VILLA, INC. v.

COURT
OF APPEALS
GR. No. 119850, June 20, 1996
Facts
 Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus hosted a dinner for his friends at
petitioner’s restaurant, the Mandarin Villa Seafood Village.
After dinner the waiter handed him the bill in the amount
of P2,658.50.
 Atty. De Jesus offered to pay through his BANKARD
credit card. The card was accepted however after
validation the waiter returned and audibly informed Atty.
De Jesus that his credit card had expired. Atty. De Jesus
replied saying that the same is about to expire on
September 1990 as embossed on its face.
 Atty. De Jesus and his two guests went to cashier to
verify again the card. The computer said “CARD
EXPIRED”. They then returned to their table. Prof. Lirag,
another guest, uttered the following remarks: “ Clody,
may problema ba? Baka kailangang maghugas na kame ng
pinggan?”.
 He then left to get his BPI Express Credit card from his
car.The same was honored and accepted.
 After the incident, he instituted the civil suit for damages
against BANKARD and petitioner. The trial court ordered
the defendants to pay Atty. De Jesus jointly and severally
for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The CA modified the decision finding petitioner solely
liable for the damages, reduced the monetary award for
moral and exemplary damages, and deleting the award for
attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
 W/N petitioner is negligent based on the facts and if so,
is its negligent act is the proximate cause of the damage
suffered by Atty. De Jesus?
Ruling
 YES. Petitioner cites its good faith in checking, not just
once but twice, the validity of the aforementioned card
prior its dishonor. It argued that since the computer
flashed an information that the credit card expired,
petitioner could not be expected to honor the same
much less be adjudged negligent for dishonoring it.
 The test for determining the existence of negligence in a
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then
he is guilty of negligence.
 The Point of Sale Guidelines which outlined the steps that
petitioner must follow must follow under the
circumstances provides: CARD EXPIRED 1. check expiry
date on card, 2. if unexpired, refer to CB, 2.1 if valid,
honor up to maximum of SPL only, 2.2 if in CB as Lost, do
procedures 2a to 2e. 2.3 if in CB as Suspended/Cancelled,
do not honor the card, 3. if expired, do not honor the
card.
 Cleary, it has not yet expired in October 1989, when the
same was wrongfully dishonored. Hence, petitioner did
not use the reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation and as such petitioner is guilty of negligence.
The humiliation and embarrassment of the private
respondent was brought about not by such remark of
Prof. Lirag but by the fact of dishonor by petitioner of
credit card. The remark of Prof. Lirag served only to
aggravate the embarrassment then felt by Atty. De Jesus
albeit silently within himself. The appeal is DISMISSED.