Case Name Pantaleon v.
American Express
Topic Volenti Non-Fit Injuria
Case No. | G.R. No. 174269 | Aug. 25, 2010
Date
Ponente Arturo Brion
The Supreme Court set aside its 2009 ruling and grant AmEx’s
motion for reconsideration absolving its liability. Under the
Doctrine of Volenti non fit Injuria, a person who knowingly and
Case voluntarily exposes himself to danger cannot claim damages for
Summary the resulting injury. Here, Pantaleon’s action was the proximate
cause for his injury. When Pantaleon made up his mind to push
through with his purchase, he must have known that the group
would become annoyed and irritated with him.
Doctrine of Volenti non fit injuria (“to which a person
assents is not esteemed in law as injury”) refers to self-inflicted
injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of
Doctrine damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed
himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. A
person who knowingly and voluntarily exposes himself to
danger cannot claim damages for the resulting injury.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. In 1991, During their visit to the Coster Diamond House in Amsterdam,
Mrs. Pantaleon had already planned to purchase diamond jewelries even
before the tour began, which totaled $13,826.00. To pay for these
purchases, Polo Pantaleon presented his American Express (AmEx) credit
card. From the records, it appears that it took AmEx a total of 78 minutes
to approve Pantaleon’s purchase and to transmit the approval to the
jewelry store. The same situation happened in the US where AMEX had a
delay in approving Mr. Pantaleon’s purchases.
2. After coming back to Manila, Pantaleon sent a letter through counsel to
AmEx demanding an apology for the “inconvenience, humiliation and
embarrassment he and his family thereby suffered” for AmEx's refusal to
provide credit authorization for the said purchases.
3. In the Supreme Court’s May 8, 2009, decision, the Court reversed the
appellate court’s decision and held that AMEX was guilty of mora solvendi,
or debtor’s default. AMEX, as debtor, had an obligation as the credit
provider to act on Pantaleon’s purchase requests, whether to approve or
disapprove them, with “timely dispatch.”
4. In this motion for reconsideration, AmEx argues that the SC erred when it
found AmEx guilty of culpable delay in complying with its obligation to act
with timely dispatch on Pantaleon's purchases.
5. AmEx admits that it normally takes seconds to approve charge purchases,
however, it emphasized that Pantaleon sought to charge in a single
transaction jewelry item $13,826 or P383,746.15. Because this was the
biggest single transaction that Pantaleon ever made using his AmEx card,
AmEx argues that the transaction necessarily required the credit
authorizer to carefully review Pantaleon’s credit history and bank
references. This careful review is also in keeping with the extraordinary
degree of diligence required of banks in handling its transactions. On the
other hand, Pantaleon argues that AmEx had the duty of timely and
promptly performing its obligation.
ISSUE RATIO
Whether AmEx - YES. AmEx acted with good faith. The SC give
acted in good faith. credence to AmEx’s claim that its review procedure
was done to ensure Pantaleon’s own protection as a
cardholder and to prevent the possibility that the
credit card was being fraudulently used by a third
person.
- Article 19 sets the standard for the conduct of all
persons, whether artificial or natural, and requires
that everyone, in the exercise of rights and the
performance of obligations, must: (a) act with justice,
(b) give everyone his due, and (c) observe honesty
and good faith. In the context of a credit card
relationship, although there is neither a contractual
stipulation nor a specific law requiring the credit card
issuer to act on the credit card holder’s offer within a
definite period of time, these principles provide the
standard by which to judge AMEX’s actions.
Whether AmEx is - NO. Pantaleon’s action was the proximate
liable for the cause for his injury. A person who knowingly and
humiliation that the voluntarily exposes himself to danger cannot claim
Pantaleons suffered. damages for the resulting injury.
- Doctrine of Volenti non fit injuria refers to self-
inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which
precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger,
even if he is not negligent in doing so.
- This doctrine is wholly applicable to this case. When
Pantaleon made up his mind to push through with his
purchase, he must have known that the group would
become annoyed and irritated with him. This was the
natural, foreseeable consequence of his decision to
make them all wait.
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we SET ASIDE our May 8, 2009 Decision
and GRANT the present motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals
Decision dated August 18, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
