2. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. CA (1993) Digest

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CA (1993)

FACTS: The private respondent in this case was the owner of a school canteen that sold soft drinks (including Coke and Sprite) and other goods to both students and the public. One da she received received so!e co!plaints co!plaints fro! parents that the Coke and Sprite Sprite soft drinks she sold contained contained fiber"like !atter and other foreign substances or particles. Testing done b the #epart!ent of  $ealth confir!ed the presence of these substances. As a conse%uence of that discover& her sales severel plu!!eted& eventuall costing her her 'ob and shop. She de!anded pa!ent of da!ages fro! the petitioner which the latter refused. The petitioner anchored its argu!ents on failure of the private respondent to ehaust ad!inistr ad!inistrative ative re!edies and prescripti prescription. on. The private private respondent respondent contended that her co!plaint co!plaint was one for da!ages which did not involve ad!inistrative action and that her cause of action was based on an in'ur to plaintiffs right which can be brought within four ears pursuant to Article **+, of the Civil Code. The trial court granted the petitioners !otion to dis!iss& reasoning that the co!plaint was based on a contract and not a %uasi"delict. The Court of Appeals annulled the trial courts orders& ruling that petitioners co!plaint was based on a %uasi"delict and not for a breach of warrant wa rrant.. The action had not prescribed et.

-SS/: 0hether or not the action for da!ages should be treated as one for breach of i!plied warrant against hidden defects or !erchantabilit or one for %uasi"delict

12-34: The action is one for %uasi"delict. The allegations in the co!plaint& that there was reckless and negligent !anufacture of  5adulterated food ite!s intended to be sold for public consu!ption6 on the part of petitioner& supported the public respondents conclusion that the cause of action was based on a %uasi"delict. The vendees re!edies against a vendor with respect to the warranties against hidden defects of or encu!brances upon the thing sold are not li!ited to those prescribed in Article *7,8 of the Civil Code. The vendor could likewise be liable for %uasi"delict under Article 9*8, of the Civil Code& and an action based thereon !a be brought b the vendee.

As a general rule& a pre"eisting contract between the parties bars the applicabilit of the law on %uasi"delict. An eception to the rule is that the liabilit itself !a be dee!ed to arise fro! %uasi"delict& such as the acts which break the contract. The Court has repeatedl held in past cases that the eistence of a contract between the  parties does not bar the co!!ission of a tort b the one against the other and the conse%uent recover of da!ages therefor.