Mandarin Villa, Inc. vs. CA and Clodualdo de Jesus

Mandarin Villa, Inc. vs. CA and Clodualdo de Jesus
G.R. No. 119850. 20 June 1996.

Ponente: Franciso, J.:

Facts: In the evening of 19 Oct 1989, private respondent de Jesus hosted a dinner for his friends at the peririoner’s restaurant, the Mandarin Villa Seafoods Village in Mandaluyong City. After dinner, the waiter handed to de Jesus the bill amounting to P2,658.50. De Jesus offered his BANKARD credit card to the waiter for payment. Minutes later, the waiter returned and audibly informed that said credit card had expired. De Jesus demonstrated that the card had yet to expire on Sept 1990, as embossed on its face. De Jesus approached the cashier who again dishonored such card. De Jesus offered his BPI express credit card instead and this was accepted, honored and verified. The trial court and CA held petitioner to be negligent.

Issues: WON petitioner was negligent; If negligent, WON such negligence was the proximate cause of private respondent’s damage.

Ruling: Petition dismissed. The test for determining the existence of negligence in a 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. In the case at bar, the Point of Sale Guidelines which outlined the steps that petitioner must follow under the circumstances reveals that whenever the words CARD EXPIRED flashes on screen, petitioner should check card’s expiry date as embossed in the card itself. If unexpired, petitioner should honor the card. Clearly, it has not yet expired in 19 Oct 1989 when the same was dishonored by petitioner. 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 private respondent was brought about by the fact of dishonor by petitioner of private respondent’s valid BANKARD. Hence, petitioner’s negligence is the proximate cause of private respondent’s damage.

*Daniq*