Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Meñez

      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.