8/14/2019 bpi express v ca - marasigan.doc

1/2

G.R. No. 120639. September 25, 1998

BPI Express Card Corporation,petitioner, vs. CAandRicardo J. Marasigan, respondents.

FACTS:KAPUNAN, J.:

The case arose rom the d!shonor o the cred!t card o the

plaintiff Atty. Ricardo J. Marasigan b" #ae $dr!at!co

%&ecember 8, 1989'.

()a!nt! *as !ss+ed a #red!t #ard b" BPI Express Card

Corporation %BECC'. The!r contract+a) re)at!ons *ent on

smooth)" +nt!) h!s statement o acco+nt or ctober 1989

amo+nt!n- toP8,987.84*as not pa!d !n d+e t!me. e *as!normed b" h!s secretar" that deendant *as demand!n-

!mmed!ate pa"ment and *as requiring him to issue a

checkor (15/ *h!ch *o+)d !nc)+de h!s +t+re b!))s, and

*as threaten!n- to s+spend h!s cred!t card. ()a!nt! !ss+ed

a ar ast an #hec !n the amo+nt o (15/, postdated

December 1, 1989*h!ch *as rece!ved onNovemer !".

n Novemer !#,deendant served p)a!nt! a )etter b"

ordinary mail !norm!n- h!m o the temporar"s+spens!on o the pr!v!)e-es o h!s cred!t card and the

!nc)+s!on o h!s acco+nt n+mber !n the!r #a+t!on 4!st. e*as a)so to)d to rera!n rom +rther +se o h!s cred!t card

to avo!d an" !nconven!ence, +n)ess he sett)es h!s

o+tstand!n- acco+nt *!th the deendant *!th!n 5 da"s

rom rece!pt o the )etter, his memership $i%% e

permanent%& cance%%ed. There is no shoing that the

plainti!! recei"ed this letter #e!ore $ecem#er %.

#on!dent that he had sett)ed h!s acco+nt, p)a!nt! !nv!ted

some -+ests on'ecemer #!n #ae $dr!at!co. hen hepresented h!s cred!t card or the b!)) amo+nt!n- to

P&'()'*, sa!d card as dishonored. (ne o) his guests,

paid the i%% & using her o$n credit card*

()a!nt! sent deendant )etter t*!ce rem!nd!n- the )atter

that he had )on- resc!nded and cance))ed *hatever

arran-ement he entered and re+est!n- or h!s correct

b!))!n-, and or an e7p)anat!on *!th!n !ve %5' da"s romrece!pt thereo *h" h!s card *as d!shonored desp!te

ass+rance to the contrar" b" deendants personne)!n

char-e, other*!se the necessar" co+rt act!on sha)) be !)ed

to ho)d defendant responsible for t!e !"miliation and

embarrassment s"ffered by !im. The deendant served !ts

!na) demand to the p)a!nt! %arch 21, 1990' re+!r!n-

h!m to pa" !n +)) h!s overd+e acco+nt or ace co+rt act!on

a)so to rep)ace the postdated chec *!th cash or ace

cr!m!na) s+!t or v!o)at!on o the ( 22.

Pri#ate respondent!)ed a comp)a!nt or dama-es a-a!nst

pet!t!oner beore the RT#aat! *h!ch r+)ed or pr!vate

respondent, !nd!n- that here!n pet!t!oner ab+sed !ts r!-ht

!n contravent!on o Article 19,N##. There !s reason to

be)!eve that p)a!nt! *as ass+red b" deendant o the

cont!n+ed honor!n- o h!s cred!t card so )on- as he pa"sh!s ob)!-at!on o (15/.

(et!t!oner appea)ed to the #$ *h!ch $;R& the

r+)!n- o the tr!a) co+rt.

ISS+E:

&oes pet!t!oner have the r!-ht to s+spend the cred!t card

o the pr!vate respondent< ,ES)

;s a postdated chec an eect!ve pa"ment< -.)

/E0$: 1$%%&' 12=nder the terms and cond!t!ons o thecred!t card, , an" card *!th o+tstand!n- ba)ances ater %30'

da"s rom or!-!na) b!))!n->statement sha)) a+tomat!ca))" be

s+spended.

The prov!s!on o the cred!t card st!p+)ates that th!rt" da"s romthe nonpa"ment o b!))!n- dated, pet!t!oner corporat!on co+)d

a+tomat!ca))" s+spend h!s cred!t card.

%$%%&' (' ?es, there *as an arran-ement bet*een the part!es

*here!n the pet!t!oner re+!red the pr!vate respondent to !ss+e

a chec *orth P3(4 as pa"ment or the )atters b!))!n-s

o*ever, the pr!vate respondent *as not ab)e to comp)" *!th

h!s ob)!-at!on. The a-reement *as or the !mmed!ate pa"mento) the outstanding account.

+ & question r* -itness is, did &ou pa& this P#,.#/*#0 in charge o)

interest and pena%ties immediate%& in cash1

A In cash no, ut in check, sir*

+ And &ou as a %a$&er &ou kno$ that a check is not considered as cash

specia%%& $hen it is postdated sent to the de)endant1

A 2hat is correct, sir*

The p+rpose o the arran-ement bet*een the part!es *as or

the !mmed!ate pa"ment o the pr!vate respondents o+tstand!n-

acco+nt, !n order that h!s cred!t card *o+)d not be s+spended.

The chec *as postdated 1 December 1989. Sett)ed !s the

doctr!ne that a chec !s on)" a s+bst!t+te or mone" and no

mone", the de)!ver" o s+ch an !nstr+ment does not, b" !tse)

operate as pa"ment, especia%%& true )or a postdated check*

Th5s6 the iss5ance #y the pri"ate respondent o! the

postdated chec7 as not e!!ecti"e payment.

There !s no )e-a) and act+a) bas!s or pr!vate respondents

assert!on that !n cance)!n- the cred!t card o the pr!vate

respondent, pet!t!oner ab+sed !ts r!-ht +nder the terms and

cond!t!ons o the contract.

To !nd the e7!stence o an ab+se o r!-ht +nder $rt!c)e 19 the

o))o*!n- e)ements m+st be present: %1' There !s a )e-a) r!-h

or d+t"@ %2' *h!ch !s e7erc!sed !n bad a!th@ %3' or the so)e!ntent o preA+d!c!n- or !nA+r!n- another.

;t *as pet!t!oners a!)+re to sett)e h!s ob)!-at!on *h!ch ca+sed

the s+spens!on o h!s cred!t card and s+bse+ent d!shonor a

#a $dr!at!co. e can not no* pass the b)ame to the pet!t!oner

or not not!"!n- h!m o the s+spens!on o h!s card.

8/14/2019 bpi express v ca - marasigan.doc

2/2

The dec!s!on o the #$ !s SET ASI$E. (r!vate respondent !s

&;R#T& to pa" h!s o+tstand!n- ob)!-at!on *!th the

pet!t!oner.