BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO J. MARASIGAN,respondents. G.R. No. No. 120639. September 25, 1998 FACTS: Marasigan, a lawyer, is a BPI credit card holder. His contractual relations with BPI went on smoothly until October 1989, when his statement of account amounting to P8,987.84 was not paid in due time. BPI demanded immediate payment, and required him to issue a check in favor of BPI, otherwise his card will be suspended. Marasigan issued a post-dated check (PDC) in favor of BPI.
BPI, having been informed of the PDC only a week after receipt, already sent a letter to Marasigan, informing him of the temporary suspension of the privileges of his card. He was also told to refrain from using his card to avoid any inconvenience/embarrassment and that unless he settles his outstanding account within 5 days from receipt of the letter, his membership will be permanently cancelled. On the other hand, confident that he had settled his account with the issuance of the postdated check, Marasigan invited some guests at Café Adriatico (there is also no showing that he received the letter from BPI before he went to Café Adriatico). When he presented his credit credit card to paythe paythe bill, the it was dishonored and one of his guests paid the bill by using her own credit card. Marasigan asked BPI to withhold the deposit of his postdated check and to return the said check to him because according to him, BPI violated their agreement that once Marasigan issues the check to the to cover his unpaid account, BPI will not suspend the effectivity of the card . Marasigan filed a complaint for damages against BPI before the trial court, and the trial court ruled in favor of him. The decision was affirmed by the CA. ISSUE/S:
1. W/N BPI had had the right right to suspend suspend the the credit credit card card of the Marasig Marasigan an 2. W/N the trial trial court and CA CA erred in holding holding BPI BPI liable liable for damages damages HELD:
1. YES 2. YES RATIO:
Under the terms and conditions of the credit card, signed by Marasigan, any card with outstanding balances after 30 days from original billing shall automatically be suspended. Marasigan admitted that he did not pay within 30 days for his original billing. BPI could automatically suspend his credit card.
Even though there was an arrangement between the parties (that upon issuance of a check, the card wouldn’t be suspended) the court found that Marasigan was not able to comply with his obligation.
The purpose of the arrangement between the parties was for the immediate payment of Marasigan’s outstanding account, in order that his credit card would not be susp suspen ende ded. d. As agre agreed ed upon upon by the the part partie ies, s, on the the foll follow owin ing g day, day, priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nt did did issu issue e a chec check. k. How owe ever, ver, the the chec check k was was post postda date ted d 15 December December 1989. Settled is the doctrine doctrine that a check is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itse itself lf oper operat ate e as paym paymen ent. t. This This is espe especi cial ally ly true true in the the case case of a postdated check. Thus, the issuance by the private respondent of the postdated check was not effective effective payment. payment. It did not comply with his obligatio obligation n under under the arrangement with BPI. BPI corporation was therefore justified in suspending his credit card.
While Marasigan suffered damages as a result of the cancellation of his credit card, there is a material distinction distinction between between damages damages and injury. Injury is the illegal illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury injury in those instances in which which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation violation of a legal duty. duty. In order that a plaintiff plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. In the case at bar, bar, it was Marasigan's Marasigan's failure to settle his obligation obligation which caus caused ed the the susp suspen ensi sion on of his his cred credit it card card and and subs subseq eque uent nt disho ishono norr at Café Café Adriatico.
