You are on page 1of 2

BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO J. MARASIGAN,respondents. G.R. No. 120639.

September 25, 1998 FACTS: Marasigan, a lawyer, is a BPI credit card holder. His contractual relations with BPI went on smoothly until October 1989, when his statement of account amounting to P8,987.84 was not paid in due time. BPI demanded immediate payment, and required him to issue a check in favor of BPI, otherwise his card will be suspended. Marasigan issued a post-dated check (PDC) in favor of BPI. BPI, having been informed of the PDC only a week after receipt, already sent a letter to Marasigan, informing him of the temporary suspension of the privileges of his card. He was also told to refrain from using his card to avoid any inconvenience/embarrassment and that unless he settles his outstanding account within 5 days from receipt of the letter, his membership will be permanently cancelled. On the other hand, confident that he had settled his account with the issuance of the postdated check, Marasigan invited some guests at Caf Adriatico (there is also no showing that he received the letter from BPI before he went to Caf Adriatico). When he presented his credit card to paythe bill, the it was dishonored and one of his guests paid the bill by using her own credit card. Marasigan asked BPI to withhold the deposit of his postdated check and to return the said check to him because according to him, BPI violated their agreement that once Marasigan issues the check to the to cover his unpaid account, BPI will not suspend the effectivity of the card. Marasigan filed a complaint for damages against BPI before the trial court, and the trial court ruled in favor of him. The decision was affirmed by the CA. ISSUE/S: 1. W/N BPI had the right to suspend the credit card of the Marasigan 2. W/N the trial court and CA erred in holding BPI liable for damages HELD: 1. YES 2. YES RATIO: Under the terms and conditions of the credit card, signed by Marasigan, any card with outstanding balances after 30 days from original billing shall automatically be suspended. Marasigan admitted that he did not pay within 30 days for his original billing. BPI could automatically suspend his credit card.

Even though there was an arrangement between the parties (that upon issuance of a check, the card wouldnt be suspended) the court found that Marasigan was not able to comply with his obligation. The purpose of the arrangement between the parties was for the immediate payment of Marasigans outstanding account, in order that his credit card would not be suspended. As agreed upon by the parties, on the following day, private respondent did issue a check. However, the check was postdated 15 December 1989. Settled is the doctrine that a check is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself operate as payment. This is especially true in the case of a postdated check. Thus, the issuance by the private respondent of the postdated check was not effective payment. It did not comply with his obligation under the arrangement with BPI. BPI corporation was therefore justified in suspending his credit card. While Marasigan suffered damages as a result of the cancellation of his credit card, there is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. In the case at bar, it was Marasigan's failure to settle his obligation which caused the suspension of his credit card and subsequent dishonor at Caf Adriatico.

You might also like