Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Meñez,
G.R. No. 209906,
November 22, 2017
DOCTRINE: The cases when moral damages may be awarded are specific. Unless
the case falls under the enumeration as provided in Article 2219, which is exclusive,
and Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages may not be awarded. The only
ground which could sustain an award of moral damages in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant in this case is Article 2219 (2) — quasi-delict under Article
2187 causing physical injuries.
FACTS:
Private respondent Meñez a frequent customer of Rosante Bar and Restaurant of
Dumaguete City. Meñez went to Rosante and ordered two (2) bottles of beer.
Thereafter, he ordered pizza and a bottle of "Sprite." His additional order arrived
consisting of one whole pizza and a bottled softdrink Sprite. Meñez then took a bite
of pizza and drank from the straw the contents of the Sprite bottle. He noticed that
the taste of the softdrink was not one of Sprite but of a different substance repulsive
to taste. The substance smelled of kerosene. He then felt a burning sensation in his
throat and stomach and could not control the urge to vomit. He left his table for the
toilet to vomit but was unable to reach the toilet room. Instead, he vomited on the
lavatory found immediately outside the said toilet. He brought the bottle of sprite to
the place where the waitresses were and angrily told them that he was served
kerosene.
Meñez then went out of the restaurant taking with him the bottle. He found a person
manning the traffic immediately outside the restaurant, whom he later came to know
as Gerardo Ovas, Jr. of the Traffic Assistant Unit. He reported the incident and
requested the latter to accompany him to the Silliman University Medical Center
(SUMC). Heading to SUMC for medical attention, Ovas brought the bottle of Sprite
with him.
The incident was reported to the police and the bottle of Sprite was examined. The
analysis identified the contents of the liquid inside the bottle as pure kerosene. As a
result of the incident, Meñez filed a complaint for damages against CCBPI and
Rosante.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. It declared that there
was failure of Meñez to categorically establish the chain of custody of the "Sprite"
bottle which was the very core of the evidence in his complaint for damages. CA
however granted the appeal and reversed the Decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. is liable for damages
HELD:
No. Meñez is not entitled to damages. The cases when moral damages may
be awarded are specific. Unless the case falls under the enumeration as provided in
Article 2219, which is exclusive, and Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages
may not be awarded. Apparently, the only ground which could sustain an award of
moral damages in favor of Meñez and against CCBPI is Article 2219 (2) —
quasi-delict under Article 2187 causing physical injuries.
Meñez has not presented competent, credible and preponde
rant evidence to
prove that he suffered physical injuries when he allegedly ingested kerosene from
the "Sprite" bottle in question. Nowhere in the CA Decision is the physical injury of
Meñez discussed. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient evidence on physical
injuries that Meñez sustained, he is not entitled to moral damages. As to exemplary
or corrective damages, these may be granted in quasi-delicts if the defendant acted
with gross negligence pursuant to Article 2231 of the Civil Code Evidently, the CA's
reasoning is not in accord with the gross negligence requirement for an award of
exemplary damages in a quasi-delict case. Moreover, Meñez has failed to establish
that CCBPI acted with gross negligence. Other than the opened "Sprite" bottle
containing pure kerosene allegedly served to him at the Rosante Bar and
Restaurant. Meñez has not presented any evidence that would show CCBPFs
purported gross negligence. Regarding attorney's fees the CA did not provide any
basis for the award. The award is found only in the dispositive portion and, unlike the
award of moral and exemplary damages, there was no explanation provided in the
body of the Decision Meñez is not entitled to attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation because, as with his claim for exemplary damages, he has not established
any other ground that would justify this award.
No comments:
Post a Comment