0% found this document useful (0 votes)
101 views2 pages

Bpi Express V Ca - Marasigan

1) The petitioner (BPI Express Card Corporation) issued the private respondent (Ricardo J. Marasigan) a credit card. When Marasigan did not pay his October 1989 billing of P8,987.84 on time, BPI demanded immediate payment and threatened to suspend his credit card. 2) Marasigan issued a postdated check for P15,000, which was received by BPI. When he tried to use his credit card in December, it was dishonored. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that under the terms of the credit agreement, BPI had the right to suspend cards with overdue balances after 30 days. It also ruled that a postdated check

Uploaded by

cary_puyat
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
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
101 views2 pages

Bpi Express V Ca - Marasigan

1) The petitioner (BPI Express Card Corporation) issued the private respondent (Ricardo J. Marasigan) a credit card. When Marasigan did not pay his October 1989 billing of P8,987.84 on time, BPI demanded immediate payment and threatened to suspend his credit card. 2) Marasigan issued a postdated check for P15,000, which was received by BPI. When he tried to use his credit card in December, it was dishonored. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that under the terms of the credit agreement, BPI had the right to suspend cards with overdue balances after 30 days. It also ruled that a postdated check

Uploaded by

cary_puyat
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/ 2

G.R. No. 120639. September 25, 1998 ISS+E: BPI Express Card Corporation, petitioner, vs.

CA and Ricardo 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" #a e $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- to P8,987.84 *as not pa!d !n d+e t!me. .e *as !n ormed b" h!s secretar" that de endant *as demand!n!mmed!ate pa"ment and *as requiring him to issue a check or (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 0ar 1ast 2an3 #hec3 !n the amo+nt o (15/, postdated December 1 , 1989 *h!ch *as rece!ved on Novem er !". ,n Novem er !#, de endant served p)a!nt! a )etter b" ordinary mail !n orm!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 re ra!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 de endant *!th!n 5 da"s rom rece!pt o the )etter, his mem ership $i%% e permanent%& cance%%ed. There is no sho ing 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 'ecem er # !n #a e $dr!at!co. 5hen he presented h!s cred!t card or the b!)) amo+nt!n- to P&'()'*, sa!d card as dishonored. (ne o) his guests, paid the i%% & using her o$n credit card* ()a!nt! sent de endant )etter t*!ce rem!nd!n- the )atter that he had )on- resc!nded and cance))ed *hatever arran-ement he entered and re6+est!n- or h!s correct b!))!n-, and or an e7p)anat!on *!th!n !ve %5' da"s rom rece!pt thereo *h" h!s card *as d!shonored desp!te ass+rance to the contrar" b" de endant8s personne)9!n9 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 de endant served !ts !na) demand to the p)a!nt! %:arch 21, 1990' re6+!r!nh!m to pa" !n +)) h!s overd+e acco+nt or ace co+rt act!on a)so to rep)ace the postdated chec3 *!th cash or ace cr!m!na) s+!t or v!o)at!on o the 2( 22. Pri#ate respondent !)ed a comp)a!nt or dama-es a-a!nst pet!t!oner be ore the RT#9:a3at! *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" de endant o the cont!n+ed honor!n- o h!s cred!t card so )on- as he pa"s h!s ob)!-at!on o (15/. (et!t!oner appea)ed to the #$ *h!ch $00;R:1& the r+)!n- o the tr!a) co+rt. &oes pet!t!oner have the r!-ht to s+spend the cred!t card o the pr!vate respondent< ,ES) ;s a postdated chec3 an e ect!ve pa"ment< -.)

/E0$: 1$%%&' 12=nder the terms and cond!t!ons o the cred!t card, , an" card *!th o+tstand!n- ba)ances a ter %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 rom the non9pa"ment o b!))!n- dated, pet!t!oner corporat!on co+)d a+tomat!ca))" s+spend h!s cred!t card. %$%%&' (' ?es, there *as an arran-ement bet*een the part!es *here!n the pet!t!oner re6+!red the pr!vate respondent to !ss+e a chec3 *orth P3(4 as pa"ment or the )atter8s b!))!n-s. .o*ever, the pr!vate respondent *as not ab)e to comp)" *!th h!s ob)!-at!on. The a-reement *as or the !mmed!ate pa"ment o) the outstanding account.
+ ,& question ,r* -itness is, did &ou pa& this P#,.#/*#0 in charge o) interest and pena%ties immediate%& in cash1 A In cash no, ut in check, sir* + And &ou as a %a$&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 respondent8s o+tstand!nacco+nt, !n order that h!s cred!t card *o+)d not be s+spended. The chec3 *as postdated 1 December 1989. Sett)ed !s the doctr!ne that a chec3 !s on)" a s+bst!t+te or mone" and not 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 respondent8s 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!-ht 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!oner8s 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+bse6+ent d!shonor at #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.

The dec!s!on o the #$ !s SET ASI$E. (r!vate respondent !s &;R1#T1& to pa" h!s o+tstand!n- ob)!-at!on *!th the pet!t!oner.

You might also like