AMERICAN EXPRESS V CORDERO [G.R. No. 138550. October 14, 2005.] AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
petitioner, vs. NOEL CORDERO, defendant.
FACTS:
On November 29, 1991, respondent, together with his wife, Nilda, daughter, sisters-in-law and uncle-in- law, went on a three-day holiday trip to Hong Kong. In the early evening of November 30, 1991, at about 7:00 o'clock, the group went to the Watson's Chemist Shop located at 277C Ocean Gallery, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Noel picked up some chocolate candies and handed to the sales clerk his American Express extension charge card to pay for his purchases. The sales clerk verified the card by making a telephone call to the American Express Office in Hong Kong. Moments later, Susan Chong, the store manager, emerged from behind the counter and informed respondent that she had to confiscate the card. Thereupon, she cut respondent's American Express card in half with a pair of scissors. 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. Hence, Nilda had to pay for the purchases using her own American Express charge card.
When they returned to the Excelsior Hotel, Nilda called up petitioner's Office in Hong Kong. She was able to talk to Senior Authorizer Johnny Chen, who informed her that on November 1, 1991, a person in Hong Kong attempted to use a charge card with the same number as respondent's card. The Hong Kong American Express Office called up respondent and after determining that he was in Manila and not in Hong Kong, placed his card in the "Inspect Airwarn Support System." This is the system utilized by petitioner as a protection both for the company and the cardholders against the fraudulent use of their charge cards.
When the Watson's sales clerk called up petitioner's Hong Kong Office, its representative said he wants to talk to respondent in order to verify the latter's identity, pursuant to the procedure observed under the "Inspect Airwarn Support System." However, respondent refused. Consequently, petitioner's representative was unable to establish the identity of the cardholder. 5 This led to the confiscation of respondent's card.
FACTS:
On November 29, 1991, respondent, together with his wife, Nilda, daughter, sisters-in-law and uncle-in- law, went on a three-day holiday trip to Hong Kong. In the early evening of November 30, 1991, at about 7:00 o'clock, the group went to the Watson's Chemist Shop located at 277C Ocean Gallery, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Noel picked up some chocolate candies and handed to the sales clerk his American Express extension charge card to pay for his purchases. The sales clerk verified the card by making a telephone call to the American Express Office in Hong Kong. Moments later, Susan Chong, the store manager, emerged from behind the counter and informed respondent that she had to confiscate the card. Thereupon, she cut respondent's American Express card in half with a pair of scissors. 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. Hence, Nilda had to pay for the purchases using her own American Express charge card.
When they returned to the Excelsior Hotel, Nilda called up petitioner's Office in Hong Kong. She was able to talk to Senior Authorizer Johnny Chen, who informed her that on November 1, 1991, a person in Hong Kong attempted to use a charge card with the same number as respondent's card. The Hong Kong American Express Office called up respondent and after determining that he was in Manila and not in Hong Kong, placed his card in the "Inspect Airwarn Support System." This is the system utilized by petitioner as a protection both for the company and the cardholders against the fraudulent use of their charge cards.
When the Watson's sales clerk called up petitioner's Hong Kong Office, its representative said he wants to talk to respondent in order to verify the latter's identity, pursuant to the procedure observed under the "Inspect Airwarn Support System." However, respondent refused. Consequently, petitioner's representative was unable to establish the identity of the cardholder. 5 This led to the confiscation of respondent's card.
On March 31, 1992, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch V, Manila, a complaint for damages against petitioner.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Trial Court: liable for damages.
(2) Court of Appeals: affirming the trial court's Decision with modification in the sense that the amounts of damages awarded were reduced.
ISSUE:
Whether AMEX is liable
RULING: No.
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 petitioner's 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 respondent's humiliation and embarrassment was his refusal to talk to petitioner's representative.
It bears reiterating that the subject card would not have been confiscated and cut had respondent talked to petitioner's representative and identified himself as the genuine cardholder. It is thus safe to conclude that there was no negligence on the part of petitioner and that, therefore, it cannot be held liable to respondent for damages.
(1) Trial Court: liable for damages.
(2) Court of Appeals: affirming the trial court's Decision with modification in the sense that the amounts of damages awarded were reduced.
ISSUE:
Whether AMEX is liable
RULING: No.
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 petitioner's 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 respondent's humiliation and embarrassment was his refusal to talk to petitioner's representative.
It bears reiterating that the subject card would not have been confiscated and cut had respondent talked to petitioner's representative and identified himself as the genuine cardholder. It is thus safe to conclude that there was no negligence on the part of petitioner and that, therefore, it cannot be held liable to respondent for damages.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment