Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Ms. Lydia Geronimo, G.R. No. _______
### Facts:
Lydia L. Geronimo, the owner of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen in Dagupan City, noticed a significant drop in the sale of Coca-Cola and Sprite products sold in her canteen around mid-August 1989. This decline was prompted by complaints from parents about foreign substances found in the beverages. Upon inspection, Geronimo discovered fiber-like substances in some Coke bottles and a plastic-like matter in a Sprite bottle.
She subsequently had the bottles tested by the Regional Health Office of the Department of Health in San Fernando, La Union, which confirmed the presence of adulterants. The decline in sales from 10 cases per day to 2-3 cases per day forced Geronimo to close her canteen in December 1989, resulting in losses and destitution.
Seeking compensation, Geronimo filed a complaint for damages against Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) on May 7, 1990, at RTC Dagupan, docketed as Civil Case No. D-9629. Her claims included various damages totaling to more than P 500,000. CCBPI moved to dismiss the case on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and prescription, arguing that the action was for breach of warranty and subject to a six-month prescriptive period under Article 1571 of the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed the case.
Geronimo’s appeal to the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s decision, holding that it was a quasi-delict with a four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146. Coca-Cola Bottlers then sought recourse at the Supreme Court.
### Issues:
1. Whether the cause of action is based on breach of warranty, thus subjected to a six-month prescriptive period under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, or on quasi-delict subject to a four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether the complaint filed by Geronimo was correctly dismissed on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and prescription.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court denied the petition of Coca-Cola Bottlers.
**Issue 1: Nature of the Cause of Action:**
The Court upheld that the cause of action was one of quasi-delict rather than breach of warranty. The allegations, particularly concerning the manufacturer’s reckless and negligent behavior resulting in adulterated beverages, were sufficient to constitute a quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The presence of contractual relationships does not preclude the applicability of quasi-delicts when negligence is involved.
**Issue 2: Prescription and Administrative Remedy:**
The Court found that actions based on quasi-delict prescribe within four years according to Article 1146. Thus, Geronimo’s complaint, filed within one year of the discovery of the adulteration, was timely. As for the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court determined that this doctrine did not apply in this situation because the existing administrative remedy was not adequate.
### Doctrine:
1. The nature of the action is determined by the factual allegations in the complaint, not by the defenses.
2. Actions for quasi-delict can be maintained even if there is a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.
3. The prescriptive period for quasi-delict actions is four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
### Class Notes:
– **Elements of Quasi-delict (Article 2176)**:
1. Act or omission by the defendant.
2. Damages suffered by the plaintiff.
3. Causal connection between the defendant’s act/omission and the damages.
– **Legal Provisions**:
– **Article 1571**: Claims for breach of warranty must be brought within six months.
– **Article 1146**: Quasi-delict actions prescribe in four years.
– **Article 1561**: Warranties.
– **Article 1567**: Remedies for breach of warranty.
### Historical Background:
This case emerged as part of broader legal considerations in product liability and consumer protection. The evolving consumer protection laws at the time increasingly recognized the necessity to hold manufacturers accountable for the safety and integrity of their products. The decision reflects a significant judicial acknowledgment of consumer rights and producer responsibilities, emphasizing the expansive interpretation of quasi-delict beyond contractual boundaries, aligning Philippine jurisprudence with global norms of product liability.
Leave a Reply