1) The vendee's (buyer's) remedies against a vendor for hidden defects in a product are not limited just to those under Article 1567 of the Civil Code. The vendee may also sue under quasi-delict (tort) principles in Article 2176.
2) The case involved a canteen owner who had to close down after parents discovered foreign substances in Coca-Cola and Sprite bottles. She sued Coke for damages.
3) The Supreme Court denied Coke's motion to dismiss, finding that the suit was based on quasi-delict principles for negligent manufacture of adulterated food. As a tort claim, it was not subject to the 6-
1) The vendee's (buyer's) remedies against a vendor for hidden defects in a product are not limited just to those under Article 1567 of the Civil Code. The vendee may also sue under quasi-delict (tort) principles in Article 2176.
2) The case involved a canteen owner who had to close down after parents discovered foreign substances in Coca-Cola and Sprite bottles. She sued Coke for damages.
3) The Supreme Court denied Coke's motion to dismiss, finding that the suit was based on quasi-delict principles for negligent manufacture of adulterated food. As a tort claim, it was not subject to the 6-
1) The vendee's (buyer's) remedies against a vendor for hidden defects in a product are not limited just to those under Article 1567 of the Civil Code. The vendee may also sue under quasi-delict (tort) principles in Article 2176.
2) The case involved a canteen owner who had to close down after parents discovered foreign substances in Coca-Cola and Sprite bottles. She sued Coke for damages.
3) The Supreme Court denied Coke's motion to dismiss, finding that the suit was based on quasi-delict principles for negligent manufacture of adulterated food. As a tort claim, it was not subject to the 6-
1) The vendee's (buyer's) remedies against a vendor for hidden defects in a product are not limited just to those under Article 1567 of the Civil Code. The vendee may also sue under quasi-delict (tort) principles in Article 2176.
2) The case involved a canteen owner who had to close down after parents discovered foreign substances in Coca-Cola and Sprite bottles. She sued Coke for damages.
3) The Supreme Court denied Coke's motion to dismiss, finding that the suit was based on quasi-delict principles for negligent manufacture of adulterated food. As a tort claim, it was not subject to the 6-
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
University of the Philippines College of Law
JTR, 1-D
Topic Manufacturers/Processors of Foodstuffs
Case No. 227 SCRA 293 Case Name Coca-cola Bottler’s Philippines v. CA Ponente Davide
DOCTRINE The vendee’s remedies against a vendor with respect to the warranties against hidden defects of or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in Article 1567 of the Civil Code.
RELEVANT FACTS This case concerns the proprietress of a school canteen which had to close down as a consequence of the big drop in its sales of soft drinks triggered by the discovery of foreign substances in certain beverages sold by it.
On 7 May 1990, Lydia L. Geronimo filed a complaint for damages against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court. She alleges in her complaint that she was the proprietress of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen located in Dagupan City, an enterprise engaged in the sale of soft drinks and other goods to the students of Kindergarten Wonderland and to the public.
On or about 12 August 1989, some parents of the students complained to her that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks sold by her contained fiber-like matter and other foreign substances or particles. She then went over her stock of soft drinks and discovered the presence of some fiber-like substances in the contents of some unopened Coke bottles and a plastic matter in the contents of an unopened Sprite bottle. She then brought the said bottles to the Regional Health Office of the Department of Health at San Fernando, La Union, for examination. Subsequently, she received a letter from the Department of Health informing her that the samples she submitted “are adulterated” and as a consequence of the discovery of the foreign substances in the beverages, her sales of soft drinks severely plummeted from the usual 10 cases per day to as low as 2 to 3 cases per day resulting in losses of from P200.00 to P300.00 per day, and not long after that she had to close shop on 12 December 1989 and became jobless and destitute.
The petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of:
(1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies (case didn’t mention any agency to which it should be filed with) (2) prescription the petitioner argued that since the complaint is for breach of warranty under Article 1561 of the Civil Code, it should have been brought within six months from the delivery of the goods pursuant to Article 1571 of the said Code on the other hand, private respondent alleged that the complaint is one for damages which does not involve an administrative action and that her cause of action is based on an injury to plaintiff’s right which can be brought within four years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code hence, the complaint was seasonably filed.
RTC: Granted the Motion to Dismiss
It ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply as the existing administrative remedy is not adequate University of the Philippines College of Law JTR, 1-D
the complaint is based on a contract, and not on quasi-delict, as there exists a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, thus, on the basis of Article 1571, in relation to Article 1562, the complaint should have been filed within six months from the delivery of the thing
CA: Reversed Petitioner’s complaint being one for quasi-delict, and not for breach of warranty as respondent contends, the applicable prescriptive period is four years. the allegations in the complaint plainly show that it is an action for damages arising from respondent’s act of ‘recklessly and negligently manufacturing adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption’ (the facts alleged determine the nature of the action. Despite the literal wording of Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the existence of contractual relations between the parties does not absolutely preclude an action by one against the other for quasi-delict arising from negligence in the performance of a contract (Singson, Air France)
ISSUE 1. Can Article 2176 (on quasi-delict) be a basis of liability for Coke despite the presence contractual relations from a contract of sale (thus making the cause of action fall under article 1561 and 1562 of the NCC on breach of implied warranties)? 2. Has the action already prescribed pursuant to article 1571 of the NCC?
RATIO DECIDENDI Issue Ratio Can Article 2176 (on YES The vendee’s remedies against a vendor with respect to the warranties against quasi-delict) be a basis of liability for Coke hidden defects of or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not limited to those despite the presence prescribed in Article 1567 of the Civil Code which provides: contractual relations o “ART. 1567. In the case of Articles 1561, 1562, 1564, 1565 and 1566, the from a contract of sale vendee may elect between withdrawing from the contract and (thus making the demanding a proportionate reduction of the price, with damages in cause of action fall either case.” under article 1561 and The vendee may also ask for the annulment of the contract upon proof of error 1562 of the NCC on or fraud, in which case the ordinary rule on obligations shall be applicable breach of implied (demandable in all obligations, any waiver of an action for future fraud is void) warranties)? Responsibility arising from negligence is also demandable in any obligation, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. The vendor could likewise be liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, and an action based thereon may be brought by the vendee o REMEMBER: the liability may itself be deemed to arise from quasi-delict, i.e., the act which breaks the contract may also be a quasi-delict Under American Law, the liabilities of the manufacturer or seller of injury- causing products may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, tort, or other grounds such as fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Has the action already NO prescribed pursuant to The public respondent’s conclusion that the cause of action is founded on quasi- article 1571 of the delict and that, therefore, pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, it prescribes University of the Philippines College of Law JTR, 1-D
NCC? in four (4) years is supported by the allegations in the complaint, more particularly paragraph 12 thereof, which makes reference to the reckless and negligent manufacture of “adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption.”
RULING NOTE: It must be made clear that our affirmance of the decision of the public respondent should by no means be understood as suggesting that the private respondent’s claims for moral damages have sufficient factual and legal basis (it is the motion to dismiss which was brought all the way up to the SC)
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner.
