Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 166 views

    AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. NOEL CORDERO, GR No. 138550, October 14, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Alexander P. Caballero
    American Express cardholder Noel Cordero had his card confiscated and cut in half by a store manager in Hong Kong. Cordero sued American Express, arguing the company failed to inform him of an earlier incident that led to the confiscation, causing him public humiliation. The trial court ruled in Cordero's favor. However, the Supreme Court determined American Express' failure to inform Cordero was not the proximate cause of his card being confiscated. While talking to an American Express representative may have prevented the incident, Cordero refused to do so. Therefore, no negligence could be attributed to American Express.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. NOEL CORDERO, GR No. 138550, October 14, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Alexander P. Caballero
    166 views1 page
    American Express cardholder Noel Cordero had his card confiscated and cut in half by a store manager in Hong Kong. Cordero sued American Express, arguing the company failed to inform him of an earlier incident that led to the confiscation, causing him public humiliation. The trial court ruled in Cordero's favor. However, the Supreme Court determined American Express' failure to inform Cordero was not the proximate cause of his card being confiscated. While talking to an American Express representative may have prevented the incident, Cordero refused to do so. Therefore, no negligence could be attributed to American Express.

    Original Title

    AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. NOEL CORDERO, GR No. 138550, October 14, 2005.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    American Express cardholder Noel Cordero had his card confiscated and cut in half by a store manager in Hong Kong. Cordero sued American Express, arguing the company failed to inform him of an earlier incident that led to the confiscation, causing him public humiliation. The trial court ruled in Cordero's favor. However, the Supreme Court determined American Express' failure to inform Cordero was not the proximate cause of his card being confiscated. While talking to an American Express representative may have prevented the incident, Cordero refused to do so. Therefore, no negligence could be attributed to American Express.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    166 views1 page

    AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. NOEL CORDERO, GR No. 138550, October 14, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Alexander P. Caballero
    American Express cardholder Noel Cordero had his card confiscated and cut in half by a store manager in Hong Kong. Cordero sued American Express, arguing the company failed to inform him of an earlier incident that led to the confiscation, causing him public humiliation. The trial court ruled in Cordero's favor. However, the Supreme Court determined American Express' failure to inform Cordero was not the proximate cause of his card being confiscated. While talking to an American Express representative may have prevented the incident, Cordero refused to do so. Therefore, no negligence could be attributed to American Express.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs.

    NOEL CORDERO
    G.R. No. 138550, October 14, 2005
    Facts:
    Respondent was a holder of an extension charge card of petitioner. He used it at
    a Shop in Hong Kong to pay for his bill but the store manager informed respondent that
    she had to confiscate the card. Thereupon, she cut respondents American Express
    card in half. This, according to respondent, caused him embarrassment and humiliation
    considering that it was done in front of his family and the other customers lined up at the
    check-out counter.
    The RTC ruled that "the inexcusable failure of petitioner to inform respondent of
    the November 1, 1991 incident was the proximate cause of the confiscation and cutting
    of plaintiffs extension card which exposed the latter to public humiliation for which
    defendant should be held liable." On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed with
    modification the decision of the RTC.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the failure of petitioner to inform the respondent of the November
    1, 1991 incident was the proximate cause of the confiscation and cutting of the
    respondents card.
    Held:
    No. To constitute quasi-delict, the fault or negligence must be the proximate
    cause of the damage or injury suffered by the plaintiff. Proximate cause is that cause
    which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
    produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Proximate
    cause is determined by the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic,
    common sense, policy and precedent.
    As explained by respondent himself, he could have used his card upon
    verification by the sales clerk of Watson that indeed he is the authorized cardholder.
    This could have been accomplished had respondent talked to petitioners
    representative, enabling the latter to determine that respondent is indeed the true holder
    of the card. Clearly, no negligence which breaches the contract can be attributed to
    petitioner. If at all, the cause of respondents humiliation and embarrassment was his
    refusal to talk to petitioners representative.

    You might also like