3. BARZAGA VS.

CA
Facts:
Petitioner bought from the hardware store of respondent Alviar of certain materials to be used in the
construction of a niche after he was assured that it will be delivered upon the date agreed upon, December
22. This is in consonance with the wife’s wish to be buried before the Christmas day. However, said
respondent failed thereby delaying likewise the interment of his wife. Petitioner sent a letter for
recompense of the damages he and his family incurred due to the owner of the hardware’s negligence.
Alviar did not respond. Subsequently, petitioner filed a case before the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilt of delay.
Ruling:

Yes. Since the respondent was negligent and incurred delay in the performance of his contractual
obligations, the petitioner is entitled to be indemnified for the damage he suffered as a consequence of the
delay or contractual breach. There was a specific time agreed upon for the delivery of the materials to the
cemetery.

This is clearly a case of non-performance of a reciprocal obligation, as in the contract of purchase and
sale, the petitioner had already done his part, which is the payment of the price. It was incumbent upon
respondent to immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods otherwise delay would attach. An
award of moral damages is incumbent in this case as the petitioner has suffered so much.

4. PANTALEON V. AMERICAN EXPRESS

Facts:
1. The petitioner (Pantaleon) and his family, joined an escorted tour of Western Europe.
2. In Coster Diamond House, Amsterdam, Mrs. Pantaleon (wife) was about to bought a 2.5 karat
diamond brilliant cut, a pendant and a chain, all of which totaled U.S. $13,826.00.
3. To pay these purchases, around 9:15am, Pantaleon presented his American Express Credit Card
together with his passport.
4. By 9:40am, Pantaleon was already worried about further inconveniencing the tour group, he
asked the store clerk to cancel the sale. the store manager though asked him to wait a few more
minutes.
5. Around 10:00am (around 45 minutes after Pantaleon had presented his AmexCard), Coster
decided to release the items even without American Express International, Inc.’s (herein
respondent, Amex for brevity) approval of the purchase. This was 30 minutes after the tour group
was supposed to have left the store.
6. The spouses Pantelon returned. Their offers of apology were met by their tourmates with stony
silence. The tour group’s visible irritation was aggravated when the tour guide announced that the
 city tour of Amsterdam was to be canceled due to lack of remaing time. Mrs. Pantaleon ended up
weeping.
7. After the star-crossed tour had ended, the Pantaleon family proceeded to the United States before
returning to Manila. While in the United States, Pantaleon continued to use his AmEx card,
several times without hassle or delay, but with two other incidents similar to the Amsterdam
brouhaha.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Amex was in default or mora.
2. Whether Amex (Credit Card Company) is in mora solvendi or in mora accipiendi.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The Court is convinced that Amex’s delay constituted breach of its contractual obligation to
act on his use of the card abroad “with special handling.:
Notwithstanding the popular notion that credit card purchases are approved “WITHIN SECONDS,” there
really is no strict, legally determinative point of demarcation on how long must it take for a credit car
company to approve or disapprove a customer’s purchase, much less one specifically contracted upon by
the parties. yet this is one of those instances when “you’d know it what you’d see it,” and one hour
appears to be an awfully long, patently unreasonable length of time to approve or disapprove a credit card
purchases. It is long enough time for the customer to walk to a bank a kilometer away, withdraw money
over the counter, and return to the store.
The Credit Authorization System (CAS) record on the Amsterdam transaction shows how Amexco
Netherlands viewed the delay as unusually frustrating. In sequence expressed in Phoenix time from 01:20
when the charge purchased was referred for authorization:
01:22 – the authorization is referred to manila Amexco.
01:32 – Netherlands gives information that the identification of the card member has been presented and
he is buying jewelries worth US $13,826
01:33 – Netherlands asks “How long will this take?”
02:08 – Netherlands is still asking “How long will this take?”
 The Amex has a right to verify whether the credit it is extending upon on a particular purchase was
indeed contracted by the cardholder, and that the cardholder is within his means to make such transaction.
The culpable failure of respondent herein is not the failure to timely approve petitioner’s purchase, but the
more elemental failure to timely act on the same, whether favorably or unfavorably. Even assuming the
respondent’s credit authorizers did not have sufficient basis on hand to make a judgment, we see no
reason why Amex could not have promptly informed petitioner the reason for the delay, and duly advised
him that resolving the same could take some time. In that way, petitioner would have had informed basis
on whether or not to pursue the transaction at Coster, given the attending circumstances. instead,
Pantaleon was left uncomfortably dangling in the chilly autumn winds in a foreign land and soon forced
to confront the wrath of foreign folk.
The delay committed by Amex was clearly attended by unjustified neglect and bad faith, since it alleges
to have consumed more than one hour to simply go over Pantaleon’s pas credit history with Amex, his
payment record and his credit and bank references, when all such data are already stored and readily
available from its computer. There is nothing in Pantaleon’s billing history that would warrant the
imprudent suspension of action by Amex in processing the purchase.
2. Amex is in mora solvendi. Generally, the relationship between a credit card provided and its card
holder is that of creditor-debtore, with the card company as a the creditor extending loans and
credit to the card holder, who as debtor is obliged to repay the creditor. The relationship already
takes exception to the general rule that as between a bank and its depositors, the bank is deemed
as the debtor while the depositor is considered as the creditor. In the present case, we should shift
perspectives and again see the credit card company as the debtor/obligor, insofar as it has the
obligation to the customer as creditor/obligee to act promptly on its purchases on credit.
If there was delay on the part of Amex in its normal role as creditor to the cardholder, such delay would
not have been in acceptance of the performance of the debtor’s obligation (i.e., the repayment of the
debt), but it would be delay in the extension of the credit in the first place. Such delay would not fall
under mora accipiendi, which contemplates that the obligation of the debtor, such as the actual purchases
on credit has already been instituted. The establishment of the debt itself (purchases on credit of the
jewelry) had not yet been perfected, as it remained pending the approval or consent of the credit card
company
5. LORENZO SHIPPING VS.
6. SOLAR HARVEST VS. DAVAO CORRUGATED
In reciprocal obligations, as in a contract of sale, the general rule is that the ful:llment of the parties'
respective obligations should be simultaneous. Hence, no demand is generally necessary because, once
a party fulfills his obligation and the other party does not ful:ll his, the latter automatically incurs in
delay. But when different dates for performance of the obligations are :xed, the default for each
obligation must be determined by the rules given in the :rst paragraph of the present article, 19 that is,
the other party would incur in delay only from the moment the other party demands ful:llment of the
former's obligation. Thus, even in reciprocal obligations, if the period for the ful:llment of the obligation
is :xed, demand upon the obligee is still necessary before the obligor can be considered in default and
before a cause of action for rescission will accrue