Bankard Vs Feliciano

G.R. No.
141761
July 28, 2006
BANKARD, INC., petitioner,
vs.
DR. ANTONIO NOVAK FELICIANO, respondent.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the May 31, 1999
Decision1 and January 28, 2000 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 56734 which modified the July 22, 1997 Decision3
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 148, in Civil
Case No. 95-1492.
The facts are as follows:
Respondent Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano is the holder of PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2610-0000-5864, issued and managed by
petitioner Bankard, Inc. An extension of the card, PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2611-0000-5863, was issued to his wife, Mrs.
Marietta N. Feliciano.
On June 19, 1995, respondent used his PCIBank Mastercard No.
5407-2610-0000-5864 to pay a breakfast bill in Toronto, Canada.
The card was, however, dishonored for payment. Respondent's
guests, Dr. Bellaflor Bumanlag and three other Filipino doctors based
in Canada, had to pay the bill. Respondent immediately called the
US toll-free number of petitioner to inquire on the cause of dishonor.
He was informed that the reason was the nonpayment of his last
billing statement. Respondent denied that he failed to pay, and
requested the person on the line to verify the correct status of his
credit card again. Respondent likewise called his secretary in the
Philippines to confirm the fact of payment, and requested her to
advise petitioner's office in Manila.
The following day, respondent met with Dr. Bumanlag to reimburse
her for the cost of the breakfast the previous day. Thereafter, Dr.
Bumanlag accompanied the respondent to the Eddie Bauer Fairview
Mall, a prestigious mall in Toronto, where the latter bought several
dressing items. Respondent presented his PCIBank Mastercard No.
5407-2610-0000-5864 for payment. Again, the card was dishonored
to the embarrassment of the respondent. Worse, the manager of the
department store confiscated the card in front of Dr. Bumanlag and
other shoppers. Respondent protested but the manager called
security and forcibly retained the card. To end the commotion that
ensued, respondent just asked for a receipt for the confiscated card.
On October 5, 1995, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner
Bankard, Inc. and Mastercard International for breach of contractual
rights and damages before the RTC-Makati City, docketed as Civil
Case No. 95-1492. Respondent alleged that he is a holder in good
standing for more than ten (10) years of PCIBank Mastercard No.
5407-2610-0000-5864, and that petitioner and Mastercard
International reneged on their agreement by suspending the
services of the card without notice to him. As a result of the
suspension and confiscation of his card in Toronto, Canada,
respondent suffered social humiliation, embarrassment and

besmirched reputation. The Canadian-based doctors, who were his
guests during the breakfast meeting in Toronto and whom he
expected to donate at least fifty thousand Canadian dollars to his
charitable clinic in Makati, withdrew their contributions because of
the incidents. Respondent prayed for P1,000,000.00 in actual
damages representing the peso equivalent of the aborted
contributions, P1,000,000.00 for moral damages, P200,000.00 for
exemplary damages, and P100,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs
of suit.
In defense, petitioner claimed due diligence before suspending the
privileges of respondent's credit card. Petitioner alleged that on June
13, 1995, it received a fraud alert or warning bulletin4 from Bank
International Indonesia. A fraud alert or warning bulletin is a notice
by telex5 or telephone addressed to the issuer of a card when a
fraudulent or counterfeit use of the card has been detected or
suspected by an acquirer. In the June 13, 1995 fraud alert, PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2611-0000-5863 was listed as having had a
suspected counterfeit transaction in Indonesia on June 11, 1995.
Petitioner's fraud analyst, Mr. Ferdinand Lopez, then accessed
petitioner's directory of cardholders to identify the holder of PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2611-0000-5863. The directory showed that
the principal cardholder for PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-26110000-5863 was respondent Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano, and that the
credit card was the extension card issued to his wife, Marietta
Feliciano. Mr. Lopez immediately called respondent at his clinic but
the latter was not there. Neither he nor his wife was at home.
Consequently, Mr. Lopez left his name, telephone number, and a
message for respondent to return his call, to the woman who
answered the phone. He likewise inquired from the woman whether
respondent and his wife were in the country or whether they had
just arrived from abroad. The woman answered "no." With that
information and considering that Indonesia has a high incidence of
counterfeit credit card transactions, Mr. Lopez concluded that the
transaction involving PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-2611-0000-5863
was counterfeit. He sent a notice of card account blocking to the
Authorization Department. He likewise sent a written notice to the
Felicianos that PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-2611-0000-5863 had a
counterfeit movement in another country and that petitioner is
temporarily suspending the services of the card including the
principal card, PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-2610-0000-5864,
pending investigation on the matter. The Felicianos were required to
submit an affidavit of disclaim and photocopies of their passports.
The Felicianos did not respond to the notification.
On July 22, 1997, the trial court decided the case in favor of
respondent.6It found that petitioner's negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of respondent's injury. Although the claim for
actual damages was disallowed for lack of proof, petitioner was
ordered to pay: (1) P1,000,000.00 as moral damages, (2)
P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, and (3) P100,000.00 for

attorney's fees and costs of suit. Petitioner was likewise ordered to
restore respondent's good name with the merchant establishment in
Canada which confiscated his Mastercard, and to return the card
with apologies to respondent.
Petitioner assailed the decision in a petition for review with the
Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated May 31, 1999,7the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding of negligence on the part of
the petitioner. However, the appellate court modified the trial
court's decision by deleting the award for exemplary damages, and
by reducing moral damages to P800,000.00, and attorney's fees and
costs of suit to P50,000.00. Actual damages was still disallowed for
lack of proof. Petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration was
denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner assigns the following errors:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING RESPONDENT MORAL
DAMAGES IN THE EXCESSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT OF
P800,000.00, WITHOUT ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS,
CONSIDERING THAT:
A. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER
ACTED FRAUDULENTLY OR IN BAD FAITH OR IN A WANTON,
RECKLESS AND OPPRESSIVE MANNER IN SUSPENDING
RESPONDENT'S CREDIT CARD.
B. EVEN AS IT WAS RESPONDENT'S DUTY TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE
HIS CLAIM FOR MORAL DAMAGES, PETITIONER HAS DULY
ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS PROMPTED TO SUSPEND THE CREDIT
CARD OF RESPONDENT SOLELY TO PROTECT ITSELF AND THE
RESPONDENT FROM ANYONE WRONGFULLY USING HIS CREDIT CARD
AND NOT OUT OF MALICE, OR ANY DELIBERATE INTENT TO CAUSE
HARM TO RESPONDENT.
C. CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF
NEGLIGENCE IN SUSPENDING RESPONDENT'S CREDIT CARD.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PETITIONER WAS NEGLIGENT IN DOING
SO, THE SAME DOES NOT WARRANT A FINDING OF MALICE OR BAD
FAITH AS TO JUSTIFY GRANTING AN AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES IN
THE STAGGERING AMOUNT OF P800,000.00.
D. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AWARD OF ACTUAL DAMAGES,
RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES.
E. THE HONORABLE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY ADMONISHED AGAINST
GRANTING EXCESSIVE MORAL DAMAGES WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED
TO ENRICH A COMPLAINANT AT THE EXPENSE OF A DEFENDANT.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES TO
RESPONDENT CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER ACTED IN GOOD
FAITH AND WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SUSPENDING RESPONDENT'S
CREDIT CARD.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE

CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH, AMONG OTHERS,
EXPRESSLY STIPULATES THAT RESPONDENT WOULD HOLD
PETITIONER "FREE AND HARMLESS FROM ANY CLAIM OF DAMAGES
ARISING FROM THE FAILURE OF ANY ACCREDITED ESTABLISHMENT
TO HONOR" HIS CREDIT CARD.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT
WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT IN CONTINUING TO USE HIS
CREDIT CARD ON 20 JUNE 1995 DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAD
ALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISHONORED THE DAY BEFORE WHEN
HE FIRST ATTEMPTED TO USE IT AFTER HIS PURPORTED BREAKFAST
MEETING WITH SOME DOCTORS.
We shall now resolve the issue of whether petitioner is liable to
respondent for moral damages and attorney's fees.
The award of moral damages is governed by Section 1, Chapter 3,
Title XVIII, Book IV of the Civil Code. Article 2220 provides:
Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances,
such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches
of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad
faith. (emphasis added)
Under the foregoing, moral damages may be recovered in culpa
contractual where the defendant acted in bad faith or with malice in
the breach of the contract.8Malice or bad faith implies moral
obliquity or a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act
for a dishonest
purpose.9However,a conscious or intentional design need not always
be present since negligence may occasionally be so gross as to
amount to malice or bad faith.10 Bad faith, in the context of Art.
2220 of the Civil Code, includes gross negligence.11 Thus, we have
held in a number of cases that moral damages may be awarded in
culpa contractual or breach of contract when the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence
amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual
obligations.12
Petitioner alleged that it suspended the privileges of respondent's
credit card only after it received the fraud alert from Indonesia, and
after its fraud analyst, Mr. Lopez, tried to contact both the
respondent and his wife at his clinic and at home. At first blush, bad
faith or malice appears not to be attributable to petitioner. However,
we find that its efforts at personally contacting respondent
regarding the suspension of his credit card fall short of the degree of
diligence required by the circumstances.
Petitioner received the fraud alert on June 13, 1995. The following
day, petitioner's fraud analyst tried to call up respondent at his
clinic and at home, to no avail. Apart from this attempt, however, no
further effort was exerted to personally inform respondent about the
cancellation of his card. Petitioner had more than enough time
within which to do so considering that it was not until four (4) days
later or June 18, 1995 that respondent left for Canada. But,
petitioner's Mr. Lopez contented himself with just leaving a message
with an unidentified woman in respondent's house for the latter to
return his call. Before receiving the return call, respondent's PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2610-0000-5864 and that of his wife, PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2611-0000-5863, had been blocked on June
15, 1995. To be sure, a notice of card account blocking was sent to
respondent. However, by the ordinary course of mail, the notice was
not expected to reach respondent for several days yet. Despite the
possibility that respondent or his wife may have occasion to use
their credit cards, petitioner's fraud analyst made no further attempt
to contact and warn them. Thus, respondent left for Canada on June
18, 1995 armed with his PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-2610-00005864 but totally unaware that the card had been blocked three (3)
days previously, and that he was not to use the same.
Petitioner claims that it suspended respondent's card to protect him
from fraudulent transactions. However, while petitioner's motive has
to be lauded, we find it lamentable that petitioner was not equally
zealous in protecting respondent from potentially embarrassing and
humiliating situations that may arise from the unsuspecting use of
his suspended PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-2610-0000-5864.
Considering the widespread use of access devices in commercial
and other transactions,13 petitioner and other issuers of credit cards
should not only guard against fraudulent uses of credit cards but
should also be protective of genuine uses thereof by the true
cardholders. In the case at bar, the duty is much more demanding
for the evidence shows that respondent is a credit cardholder for
more than ten (10) years in good standing, and has not been shown
to have violated any of the provisions of his credit card agreement
with petitioner. Considering the attendant circumstances, we find
petitioner to have been grossly negligent in suspending
respondent's credit card. To reiterate, moral damages may be
awarded in a breach of contract when the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence
amounting to bad faith.14
With respect to the amount of moral damages to be awarded, the
well-entrenched principle is that the grant thereof depends upon the
discretion of the court considering the circumstances of each case. 15
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that respondent's PCIBank
Mastercard No. 5407-2610-0000-5864 was dishonored in a foreign
country where the respondent was not expected to have family
members or close friends nearby to lend him a helping hand. It was
twice dishonored in public places. Worse, the card was first
dishonored during a breakfast-cum-business meeting with respected
medical colleagues based in that country. Respondent had
absolutely no inkling then that there was a problem with his card.
Moreover, he had no reason to think that something was amiss since
he is a member in good standing for more than ten (10) years and
had no previous bad experience with the card. However, since moral
damages are patently not meant to enrich the complainant at the
expense of the defendant and should only be commensurate with
the actual loss or injury suffered,16 we reduce the amount awarded
by the Court of Appeals from P800,000.00 to P500,000.00.
We likewise affirm the award for attorney's fees. Plaintiff was
compelled to litigate to protect his interest, and the lower courts
deemed it just and equitable to award him attorney's fees.17 The
respondent had to vindicate his rights up to the highest court of the
land.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
of the Court of Appeals, dated May 31, 1999, granting moral
damages and attorney's fees to respondent, as well as its Resolution
dated January 28, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV No. 56734, is AFFIRMED with
the sole modification that the amount of moral damages is
REDUCED to P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Azcuna, Garcia, J.J., concur.

Bankard Vs Feliciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bankard Vs Feliciano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bankard Vs Feliciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

respondent suffered social humiliation, embarrassment and

P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, and (3) P100,000.00 for

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE

You might also like