Coca-Cola bottlers v.

CA
Petition: review
Petitioner: Coca-Cola Bottlers
Respondent: CA and Lydia Geronimo the proprietress

DOCTRINE: The availability of an action or breach of warranty does not

bar an action for torts in a sale of defective goods. The liabilities of a
manufacturer or seller of injury-causing products may be based on
negligence, breach of warranty, tort, or other grounds such as fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation.
FACTS:
1. (August 1989) Lydia the respondent was a proprietress in a
kindergarden, an enterprise engaged in the sale of soft drinks (Coke
and Sprite) and other goods to the students of Kindergarden
Wonderland and to the public. Some parents then complained that
her drinks had fiber-like matter and other foreign substances.
2. Upon checking, she discovered the presence of such particles and
brought the bottles to the Regional Health Office. She then was
notified that her samples were adulterated. Because of this, her
sales went down and eventually had to close shop.
3.

(May 1990) Lydia filed a case for damages based on Quasi-delict.

Petitioners moved to dismiss, one of the grounds was prescription
(and failure to exhaust remedies). Petitioner argued that the
complaint is for breach of warranty and should be filed within 6
months from delivery.

4. RTC granted MTD. It held that the complaint is based on contract

and not on Quasi-delict, as there is no pre-existing contractual
obligation, thus its prescription period is 6 mos.

5. Brought up to CA. It held that it is an action for QD because the

complaint shows that the damages arose from petitioners act of
"recklessly and negligently manufacturing adulterated food items
intended to be sold or public consumption". Also because of the Air
France doctrine, the complaint was allowed.
ISSUE: WON the complaint for the reckless and negligent manufacturing
adulterated food items by the manufacturer is one for breach of warranty
exclusively.
HELD: No. A quasi-delict is not barred by the existence of a contract with the
manufacturer.
There are two main options for the breach of sellers implied warranties. The
vendee may withdraw the contract or demand a proportionate reduction of
the price with damages in either case, based on the provisions of the Civil
Code. The vendor could also be liable for quasi-delict. Although as a general
rule, a contract between the parties bars the applicability of the law on QD,
the liability may itself arise from quasi-delict, pursuant to the case of Air
France.
Under American law, the liabilities of a manufacturer or seller of injurycausing products may be based on negligence, 21 breach of
warranty, 22 tort, 23 or other grounds such as fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.24 Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
(which is known in Spanish legal treaties asculpa aquiliana, culpa extracontractual or cuasi-delitos) 25 is homologous but not identical to tort under
the common law, 26 which includes not only negligence, but also intentional
criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.
However, the affirmance of the CA decision does not suggest that the claims
for moral damages have factual and legal basis.

WHEREFORE: Petition is denied.