Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 346 views

    Mandarin Villa, Inc. V. Court of Appeals: GR. No. 119850, June 20, 1996

    Uploaded by

    mvender
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Mandarin Villa Seafood Village and Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus. Atty. de Jesus attempted to pay for dinner at Mandarin Villa with his expired credit card. The waiter informed him publicly that the card was expired, embarrassing him in front of his friends. While the card was indeed expired in September 1990, the date of the incident was October 1989 so the card should have been accepted. The Court ruled Mandarin Villa was negligent for not following proper procedures and publicly embarrassing Atty. de Jesus, and that this negligence caused him moral damages.

    Copyright:

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

    Mandarin Villa, Inc. V. Court of Appeals: GR. No. 119850, June 20, 1996

    Uploaded by

    mvender
    346 views8 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Mandarin Villa Seafood Village and Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus. Atty. de Jesus attempted to pay for dinner at Mandarin Villa with his expired credit card. The waiter informed him publicly that the card was expired, embarrassing him in front of his friends. While the card was indeed expired in September 1990, the date of the incident was October 1989 so the card should have been accepted. The Court ruled Mandarin Villa was negligent for not following proper procedures and publicly embarrassing Atty. de Jesus, and that this negligence caused him moral damages.

    Original Description:

    eheheh

    Original Title

    Vender Mandarin Villa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Mandarin Villa Seafood Village and Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus. Atty. de Jesus attempted to pay for dinner at Mandarin Villa with his expired credit card. The waiter informed him publicly that the card was expired, embarrassing him in front of his friends. While the card was indeed expired in September 1990, the date of the incident was October 1989 so the card should have been accepted. The Court ruled Mandarin Villa was negligent for not following proper procedures and publicly embarrassing Atty. de Jesus, and that this negligence caused him moral damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    346 views8 pages

    Mandarin Villa, Inc. V. Court of Appeals: GR. No. 119850, June 20, 1996

    Uploaded by

    mvender
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Mandarin Villa Seafood Village and Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus. Atty. de Jesus attempted to pay for dinner at Mandarin Villa with his expired credit card. The waiter informed him publicly that the card was expired, embarrassing him in front of his friends. While the card was indeed expired in September 1990, the date of the incident was October 1989 so the card should have been accepted. The Court ruled Mandarin Villa was negligent for not following proper procedures and publicly embarrassing Atty. de Jesus, and that this negligence caused him moral damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    MANDARIN VILLA, INC. v.

    COURT
    OF APPEALS
    GR. No. 119850, June 20, 1996
    Facts
     Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus hosted a dinner for his friends at
    petitioner’s restaurant, the Mandarin Villa Seafood Village.
    After dinner the waiter handed him the bill in the amount
    of P2,658.50.
     Atty. De Jesus offered to pay through his BANKARD
    credit card. The card was accepted however after
    validation the waiter returned and audibly informed Atty.
    De Jesus that his credit card had expired. Atty. De Jesus
    replied saying that the same is about to expire on
    September 1990 as embossed on its face.
     Atty. De Jesus and his two guests went to cashier to
    verify again the card. The computer said “CARD
    EXPIRED”. They then returned to their table. Prof. Lirag,
    another guest, uttered the following remarks: “ Clody,
    may problema ba? Baka kailangang maghugas na kame ng
    pinggan?”.
     He then left to get his BPI Express Credit card from his
    car.The same was honored and accepted.
     After the incident, he instituted the civil suit for damages
    against BANKARD and petitioner. The trial court ordered
    the defendants to pay Atty. De Jesus jointly and severally
    for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
    The CA modified the decision finding petitioner solely
    liable for the damages, reduced the monetary award for
    moral and exemplary damages, and deleting the award for
    attorney’s fees.
    ISSUE
     W/N petitioner is negligent based on the facts and if so,
    is its negligent act is the proximate cause of the damage
    suffered by Atty. De Jesus?
    Ruling
     YES. Petitioner cites its good faith in checking, not just
    once but twice, the validity of the aforementioned card
    prior its dishonor. It argued that since the computer
    flashed an information that the credit card expired,
    petitioner could not be expected to honor the same
    much less be adjudged negligent for dishonoring it.
     The test for determining the existence of negligence in a
    particular 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.
     The Point of Sale Guidelines which outlined the steps that
    petitioner must follow must follow under the
    circumstances provides: CARD EXPIRED 1. check expiry
    date on card, 2. if unexpired, refer to CB, 2.1 if valid,
    honor up to maximum of SPL only, 2.2 if in CB as Lost, do
    procedures 2a to 2e. 2.3 if in CB as Suspended/Cancelled,
    do not honor the card, 3. if expired, do not honor the
    card.
     Cleary, it has not yet expired in October 1989, when the
    same was wrongfully dishonored. 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 the private
    respondent was brought about not by such remark of
    Prof. Lirag but by the fact of dishonor by petitioner of
    credit card. The remark of Prof. Lirag served only to
    aggravate the embarrassment then felt by Atty. De Jesus
    albeit silently within himself. The appeal is DISMISSED.

    You might also like