Scribd
Upload
559 views1 page

Bankard Inc. V Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano - EMAS

Dr. Feliciano sued Bankard Inc. for damages after his credit card was dishonored twice while he was in Canada - once for a breakfast bill and once while shopping at a department store, where the card was confiscated. The trial court found Bankard liable and awarded Dr. Feliciano moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also found Bankard liable, holding that while its motive to protect against fraud was valid, it failed its duty of care to Dr. Feliciano, a customer in good standing for over 10 years, by not properly informing him before suspending his card, resulting in embarrassment and humiliation.

Uploaded by

Apollo Glenn C. Emas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
559 views1 page

Bankard Inc. V Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano - EMAS

Dr. Feliciano sued Bankard Inc. for damages after his credit card was dishonored twice while he was in Canada - once for a breakfast bill and once while shopping at a department store, where the card was confiscated. The trial court found Bankard liable and awarded Dr. Feliciano moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also found Bankard liable, holding that while its motive to protect against fraud was valid, it failed its duty of care to Dr. Feliciano, a customer in good standing for over 10 years, by not properly informing him before suspending his card, resulting in embarrassment and humiliation.

Uploaded by

Apollo Glenn C. Emas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DAMAGES : Bankard Inc. v Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano G.R. No. 141761, July 28, 2006 PUNO, J.

: FACTS: Dr. Antonio Feliciano is the holder of PCIBank Mastercard and an extension card was issued to his wife, Mrs. Marietta N. Feliciano. On June 19, 1995, respondent used his PCIBank Mastercard to pay a breakfast bill in Canada but the card was dishonored for payment. He found out that according to the bank, he failed to pay his last billing which he denied. He called his secretary in the Philippines to verify the payment. The following day, respondent met with Dr. Bumanlag to reimburse her for the cost of the breakfast the previous day. Thereafter, Dr. Bumanlag accompanied the respondent to a prestigious mall in Toronto, where the latter bought several dressing items. Respondent presented the same card for payment which was dishonored to the embarrassment of Feliciano. Worse, the manager of the department store confiscated the card in front of Dr. Bumanlag and other shoppers. On October 5, 1995, respondent filed a case against the bank. On July 22, 1997, the trial court decided the case in favor of respondent. Although the claim for actual damages was disallowed for lack of proof, petitioner was ordered to pay:(1) P1,000,000.00 as moral damages, (2)P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, and (3) P100,000.00 for attorneys fees and costs of suit. Petitioner was likewise ordered to restore respondents good name with the merchant establishment in Canada which confiscated his Mastercard, and to return the card with apologies to respondent. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower courts decision. ISSUE: WON Bankard is liable to Dr. Feliciano for damages HELD: YES. Petitioner alleged that it suspended the privileges of respondent's credit card only after it received the fraud alert from Indonesia, and after its fraud analyst, Mr. Lopez, tried to contact both the respondent and his wife at his clinic and at home. At first blush, bad faith or malice appears not to be attributable to petitioner. However, we find that its efforts at personally contacting respondent regarding the suspension of his credit card fall short of the degree of diligence required by the circumstances. Petitioner claims that it suspended respondent's card to protect him from fraudulent transactions. While petitioner's motive has to be lauded, we find it lamentable that petitioner was not equally zealous in protecting respondent from potentially embarrassing and humiliating situations that may arise from the unsuspecting use of his suspended PCIBank Mastercard. Considering the widespread use of access devices in commercial and other transactions, petitioner and other issuers of credit cards should not only guard against fraudulent uses of credit cards but should also be protective of genuine uses thereof by the true cardholders. In the case at bar, the duty is much more demanding for the evidence shows that respondent is a credit cardholder for more than ten (10) years in good standing, and has not been shown to have violated any of the provisions of his credit card agreement with petitioner. Considering the attendant circumstances, we find petitioner to have been grossly negligent in suspending respondent's credit card. To reiterate, moral damages may be awarded in a breach of contract when the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith.

You might also like