8/9/2019 Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. CA

1/4

Torts and DamagesRepublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 1102 ! Octobe" 1#$ 1 %

&O&'(&O)' *OTT)+RS P,I)IPPIN+S$ IN&.$-s.

T,+ ,ONOR'*)+ &O RT OF 'PP+')S /Fifth Di-ision an MS.) DI' G+RONIMO$ "espon ents.

'n3a"a$ 'bello$ &oncepcion$ Re3ala 4 &"u5 )a6 Offices fo" petitione".

'le7an "o M. Villa8il fo" p"i-ate "espon ent.

D'VID+$ 9R.$ J.:

This case conce"ns the p"op"iet"ess of a school canteen 6hich ha toclose o6n as a conse:uence of the bi3 "op in its sales of soft "in;st"i33e"e b< the isco-e"< of fo"ei3n substances in ce"tain be-e"a3essol b< it. The inte"estin3 issue pose is 6hethe" the subse:uent actionfo" a8a3es b< the p"op"iet"ess a3ainst the soft "in;s 8anufactu"e"

shoul be t"eate as one fo" b"each of i8plie 6a""ant< a3ainst hi enefects o" 8e"chantabilit1 of the &i-il&o e$ o" one fo" quasi-delict $ as hel b< the public "espon ent$ 6hichcan be file 6ithin fou" 2$000.00 as co8pensato"< a8a3es$ P!00$000.00 as 8o"al a8a3es$P10$000.00 as e=e8pla"< a8a3es$ the a8ount e:ual to %0E of the

a8a3es a6a" e as atto"ne< s fees$ an the costs. 2

The petitione" 8o-e to is8iss %

the co8plaint on the 3"oun s offailu"e to e=haust a 8inist"ati-e "e8e ies an p"esc"iption. 'nent thelatte" 3"oun $ the petitione" a"3ue that since the co8plaint is fo"

b"each of 6a""ant< un e" '"ticle 1!@1 of the sai &o e. In he"&o88ent ? the"eto$ p"i-ate "espon ent alle3e that the co8plaint isone fo" a8a3es 6hich oes not in-ol-e an a 8inist"ati-e action anthat he" cause of action is base on an in7u"< to plaintiff s "i3ht 6hichcan be b"ou3ht 6ithin fou"

8/9/2019 Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. CA

2/4

Torts and DamagesIn its O" e" of 2% 9anua"< 1 1$ @ the t"ial cou"t 3"ante the 8otion to

is8iss. It "ule that the oct"ine of e=haustion of a 8inist"ati-e"e8e ies oes not appl< as the e=istin3 a 8inist"ati-e "e8e < is nota e:uate. It also state that the co8plaint is base on a cont"act$ annot on quasi-delict $ as the"e e=ists p"e(e=istin3 cont"actual "elation

bet6een the pa"tiesC thus$ on the basis of '"ticle 1!>1$ in "elation to

'"ticle 1!@2$ the co8plaint shoul ha-e been file 6ithin si= 8onthsf"o8 the eli-e"< of the thin3 sol .

,e" 8otion fo" the "econsi e"ation of the o" e" ha-in3 been enie b 'p"il 1 1$ > the p"i-ate "espon entca8e to this &ou"t -ia a petition fo" "e-ie6 on certiorari 6hich 6e"efe""e to the public "espon ent fo" p"ope" ete"8ination an

isposition. # The public "espon ent oc;ete the case as &'(G.R. SP No. 2!% 1.

In a ecision p"o8ul3ate on 2# 9anua"< 1 2$ the public "espon entannulle the :uestione o" e"s of the RT& an i"ecte it to con uctfu"the" p"ocee in3s in &i-il &ase No. D( @2 . In hol in3 fo" the

p"i-ate "espon ent$ it "ule that

Petitione" s co8plaint bein3 one fo" quasi-delict, annot fo" b"each of 6a""ant< as "espon ent conten s$ theapplicable p"esc"ipti-e pe"io is fou" @Phil. ??!C 'l3e" +lect"ic$ Inc. -. &'$ 1%! S&R' %?0 .

Secon l $ the Sup"e8e &ou"t"ule

It has been "epeate l< hel that thee=istence of a cont"act bet6een the

pa"ties oes not ba" the co88ission of ato"t b< the one a3ainst the othe" an theconse:uent "eco-e"< of a8a3es the"efo" . . . . Thus in 'i" F"ance -s. &a""ascoso$ .. . /it 6as hel that althou3h the "elation

bet6een a passen3e" an a ca""ie" iscont"actual both in o"i3in an in natu"e

the act that b"ea;s the cont"act 8a< also be a to"t.

Si3nificantl

8/9/2019 Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. CA

3/4

Torts and DamagesG+N+R') PROVISION ON QUASI-DE IC!S $ IS'PP)I&'*)+ IN T,IS &'S+ B,+N T,+'))+G'TIONS OF T,+ &OMP)'INT &)+'R)S,OB T,'T PRIV'T+ R+SPOND+NT S &' S+ OF'&TION IS *'S+DON *R+'&, OF ' S+))+R SIMP)I+D B'RR'NTI+S ND+R O R )'B ON

S')+S.

II.

&ORRO)'RI) $ T,+ ,ONOR'*)+ &O RT OF'PP+')S &OMMITT+D ' GR'V+ 'NDR+V+RSI*)+ +RROR IN OV+RR )INGP+TITION+R S 'RG M+NT T,'T PRIV'T+R+SPOND+NT S &' S+ OF '&TION ,'DPR+S&RI*+D ND+R 'RTI&)+ 1!>1 OF T,+

&IVI) &OD+. 12

The petitione" insists that a cu"so"< "ea in3 of the co8plaint 6ill"e-eal that the p"i8a"< le3al basis fo" p"i-ate "espon ent s cause ofaction is not '"ticle 21>@ of the &i-il &o e on quasi-delict H fo" theco8plaint oes not asc"ibe an< to"tious o" 6"on3ful con uct on its pa"t

H but '"ticles 1!@1 an 1!@2 the"eof on b"each of a selle" s i8plie6a""anties un e" the la6 on sales. It conten s the e=istence of acont"actual "elation bet6een the pa"ties /a"isin3 f"o8 the cont"act ofsale ba"s the application of the la6 on quasi-delicts an that since

p"i-ate "espon ent s cause of action a"ose f"o8 the b"each of i8plie6a""anties$ the co8plaint shoul ha-e been file 6ithin si= 8onths"oo8 eli-e"< of the soft "in;s pu"suant to '"ticle 1>1 of the &i-il&o e.

In he" &o88ent the p"i-ate "espon ent a"3ues that in case of b"each of the selle" s i8plie 6a""anties$ the -en ee 8a ofthe &i-il &o e$ elect bet6een 6ith "a6in3 f"o8 the cont"act o"

e8an in3 a p"opo"tionate "e uction of the p"ice$ 6ith a8a3es ineithe" case. She asse"ts that &i-il &ase No. D( @2 is neithe" an action

fo" "escission no" fo" p"opo"tionate "e uction of the p"ice$ but fo"

a8a3es a"isin3 f"o8 a quasi-delict an that the public "espon ent 6asco""ect in "ulin3 that the e=istence of a cont"act i not p"eclu e theaction fo" quasi-delict . 's to the issue of p"esc"iption$ the p"i-ate"espon ent insists that since he" cause of action is base on quasi-delict $ the p"esc"ipti-e pe"io the"efo"e is fou" /?

8/9/2019 Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. CA

4/4

Torts and Damagesan those 6ho in an< 8anne" cont"a-ene the teno" the"eof a"e liablefo" a8a3es. 1@

The -en o" coul li;e6ise be liable fo" quasi-delict un e" '"ticle 21>@of the &i-il &o e$ an an action base the"eon 8a< be b"ou3ht b< the-en ee. Bhile it 8a< be t"ue that the p"e(e=istin3 cont"act bet6een the

pa"ties 8a this &ou"t state

Be ha-e "epeate l< hel $ ho6e-e"$ that the e=istence of a cont"act bet6een the pa"ties oes not ba" theco88ission of a to"t b< the one a3ainst the othe" anthe conse:uent "eco-e"< of a8a3es the"efo". 1# In ee $this -ie6 has been$ in effect$ "eite"ate in a

co8pa"ati-el< "ecent case. Thus$ in Air &rance vs . Carrascoso $1 in-ol-in3 an ai"plane passen3e" 6ho$

espite hi fi"st(class tic;et$ ha been ille3all< oustef"o8 his fi"st(class acco88o ation an co8pelle tota;e a seat in the tou"ist co8pa"t8ent$ 6as hel entitleto "eco-e" a8a3es f"o8 the ai"(ca""ie"$ upon the3"oun of to"t on the latte" s pa"t$ fo"$ althou3h the"elation bet6een the passen3e" an a ca""ie" is

cont"actual both in o"i3in an natu"e . . . the act that b"ea;s the cont"act 8a< also be a to"t.

Othe"6ise put$ liabilit< fo" quasi-delict 8a< still e=ist espitethe p"esence of cont"actual "elations. 20

n e" '8e"ican la6$ the liabilities of a 8anufactu"e" o" selle"of in7u"