01 2 Coca - Cola V CA GR 110295
01 2 Coca - Cola V CA GR 110295
01 2 Coca - Cola V CA GR 110295
one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages thereof.
CASE NO./DATE G.R. 110295; October 18, 1993
CASE TITLE COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC v THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Fifth
Division) and MS. LYDIA GERONIMO
SUBJECT Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176, is known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa
aquiliana, culpa-contractual, or cuasi-delitos which is homologous but not identical to Tort.
FACTS
1. Private respondent Lydia Geronimo was the proprietress of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan City
catering to the students of Kindergarten Wonderland and to the public.
2. In 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. She brought some of here unopened bottles for
examination to DOH where it was found that the soft drinks “are adulterated.” As a result of the incident, her
day sales of soft drinks severely plummeted, eventually forcing her to close shop on December 1989.
3. Lydia demanded damages from petitioner before the RTC. In response, Petitioner Coca Cola filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and prescription,
contending that the action instituted was one for breach of implied warranty against hidden defect, which
should have been filed within 6 months from delivery of the thing sold.
4. In her Comment thereto, Lydia 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 her rights which can be brought
within four years pursuant to Article 11461 of the Civil Code; hence, the complaint was seasonably filed.
5. RTC ruled in favour of petitioner Coca-Cola holding that that the complaint was based on a contract, and not
on quasi-delict, as there exists pre-existing contractual relation between the parties; thus, on the basis of
Article 1571,2 the complaint should have been filed within six months from the delivery of the thing sold.
6. After her MR was denied, respondent Lydia came to this Court via petition for review on certiorari which we
referred to the public respondent for proper determination and disposition.
7. CA annulled the orders of the RTC and directed it to conduct further proceedings of the case. The CA held
that Lydia’s complaint is one for quasi-delict and not for breach of warranty as Coca-Cola contends as stressed
by the allegations in the complaint for acts of recklessly and negligently manufacturing adulterated food items
intended to be sold or for public consumption. Also 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 the contract. The applicable prescriptive period is four years. Hence, this petition for review
under Rule 45 by petitioner Coca Cola.
ISSUE 1 Whether or not the CA committed a grave and reversible error in ruling that article 2176, the general
provision on quasi-delicts, is applicable in this case when the allegations of the complaint clearly
show that private respondent's cause of action is based on breach of a seller's implied warranties
under our law on sales.
RULING No. The public respondent's conclusion that the cause of action in Civil Case No. D-9629 is found
on quasi-delict and that, therefore, pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, it prescribes in four (4)
years is supported by the allegations in the complaint. Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, Whoever
by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is call quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
Yes. While it may be true that the pre-existing contract between the parties may, as a general rule, bar
the applicability of the law on quasi-delict, the liability may itself be deemed to arise from quasi-
delict, i.e., the acts which breaks the contract may also be a quasi-delict. It has repeatedly been held,
that the existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one
against the other. The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. Otherwise put, liability for quasi-
delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations.
ISSUE 2 Whether or not the CA committed grave and reversible error in overruling petitioner's argument that
private respondent's cause of action had prescribed under article 1571 of the civil code.
RULING No. Since private respondent’s cause of action is one founded on quasi-delict, then the complaint was
seasonably filed within the 4 years prescriptive period pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
1
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a
quasi-delict;
2
Article 1571 of the Civil Code provides that an action to rescind 'shall be barred after six months, from delivery of the thing
sold". This article will be made applicable by Article 1714 which provides that "the pertinent provisions on warranty of title against hidden
defect in a contract of sale".
FALLO IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, with costs
against the petitioner.