You are on page 1of 1

Mandarin Villa, Inc. vs.

CA and Clodualdo de Jesus


G.R. No. 119850. 20 June 1996.
Ponente: Franciso, J.:
Facts: In the evening of 19 Oct 1989, private respondent de Jesus hosted a dinner for his friends at the
peririoners restaurant, the Mandarin Villa Seafoods Village in Mandaluyong City. After dinner, the waiter
handed to de Jesus the bill amounting to P2,658.50. De Jesus offered his BANKARD credit card to the
waiter for payment. Minutes later, the waiter returned and audibly informed that said credit card had
expired. De Jesus demonstrated that the card had yet to expire on Sept 1990, as embossed on its face. De
Jesus approached the cashier who again dishonored such card. De Jesus offered his BPI express credit
card instead and this was accepted, honored and verified. The trial court and CA held petitioner to be
negligent.
Issues: WON petitioner was negligent; If negligent, WON such negligence was the proximate cause of
private respondents damage.
Ruling: Petition dismissed. The test for determining the existence of negligence in a case may be stated as
follows: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. In
the case at bar, the Point of Sale Guidelines which outlined the steps that petitioner must follow under the
circumstances reveals that whenever the words CARD EXPIRED flashes on screen, petitioner should
check cards expiry date as embossed in the card itself. If unexpired, petitioner should honor the card.
Clearly, it has not yet expired in 19 Oct 1989 when the same was dishonored by petitioner. Hence,
petitioner did not use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used
in the same situation and as such, petitioner is guilty of negligence.
The humiliation and embarrassment of private respondent was brought about by the fact of dishonor by
petitioner of private respondents valid BANKARD. Hence, petitioners negligence is the proximate cause
of private respondents damage.