Gaisano Superstore v. Rhedey
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents purchased Cadbury chocolate bars from petitioner in September 2007 and January 2008. Upon opening the chocolates, they discovered they were infested with maggots, maggot eggs, and cobwebs. Respondents attempted to seek compensation from Cadbury Adams Philippines, Inc. (Cadbury) and petitioner, but to no avail. A complaint was filed with the Department of Health (DOH), which conducted an investigation and found a purchased chocolate bar unfit for consumption. However, the DOH dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction over the claim for damages. Procedural History: Respondents filed a complaint for damages against Cadbury and petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for selling infested products and refusing compensation. The RTC, finding petitioner liable for negligence under Republic Act No. 7394 (The Consumer Act of the Philippines), ordered petitioner to pay respondents P50,000.00 as temperate damages and P10,000.00 as actual damages (litigation expenses). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that proof of purchase is not exclusively dependent on receipts and that petitioner was negligent. The CA ruled that petitioner's failure to exercise due care rendered it liable. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision, primarily arguing that respondents failed to present official receipts as proof of purchase, thus lacking a cause of action.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is liable for damages despite respondents' failure to present official receipts as proof of purchase. Whether the award of temperate damages and actual damages (litigation expenses) is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. Petitioner Gaisano Superstore, Inc. (Valencia City Branch) was ordered to pay respondents Spouses Frank Rhedey and Jocelyn Rhedey P50,000.00 as temperate damages and P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, both with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Resolution until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability despite lack of receipts: The Court held that petitioner is liable for damages. While Rule 45 petitions are generally limited to questions of law, the Court may review findings of fact in certain exceptions, though none were sufficiently alleged or proven by petitioner here. The Court emphasized that a receipt is not the exclusive or conclusive evidence of purchase; the fact of purchase can be established by other evidence, such as the positive testimony of a witness. In this case, Frank Rhedey's testimony, coupled with the testimony of petitioner's witness regarding the withdrawal of Cadbury chocolates from store display after the first complaint, sufficiently established the fact of purchase. The Court found that petitioner was negligent in selling contaminated food products under Articles 97 and 98 of Republic Act No. 7394, also known as The Consumer Act of the Philippines. The duty of a seller to exercise due care and diligence in maintaining safe products is paramount. On the award of temperate and actual damages: The Court affirmed the award of temperate damages, citing Article 2224 of the Civil Code. Temperate damages are recoverable when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot be proven with certainty, leaving the amount to the discretion of the court. The lower courts' factual finding of negligence and consequent pecuniary loss, though not precisely quantifiable, justified the award of P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The Court also clarified that the P10,000.00 awarded by the RTC, denominated as actual damages for litigation expenses, should be more accurately considered as attorney's fees. Pursuant to Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, respondents are entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses because they were compelled to litigate to protect their rights. The Court imposed legal interest on the monetary awards.
Main Doctrine
A seller is liable for damages for selling contaminated food products due to negligence, even in the absence of official receipts, if the fact of purchase can be established by other evidence. Temperate damages are recoverable when pecuniary loss is suffered but the amount cannot be proven with certainty.