AUTHORSHIP INFORMATION

Digest Author Grace Ann Tamboon

Topic Credit Transaction Obligation of Merchant
CASE INFORMATION
Petitioner(s) Mandarin Villa
Respondent(s Court of Appeals
)
Reference G.R. No. 119850 June 20, 1996
Ponente Justice Francisco
DOCTRINE(S)
A card holder’s offer to pay by means of his credit card constitutes not only an
acceptance of the provisions of a stipulation pour autri but also an explicit
communication of his acceptance to the obligor.
CASE SUMMARY
Clodualdo de Jesus, the private respondent, hosted a dinner for
his friends at the petitioner's restaurant, the Mandarin Villa
Seafoods Village. The waiter presented the bill of P2,658.50, and
the private respondent offered to pay using his Phil Commercial
Pertinent
Facts Credit Card issued by BANKARD. The waiter accepted but
returned ten minutes later, claiming that the card had expired, even
though it was still valid. The private respondent and his guests
approached the cashier, who also said that the card had expired.
The private respondent used his BPI Express Credit Card to pay,
which was accepted. As a result, the private respondent filed a
lawsuit for damages.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

RTC Directed petitioner and BANKARD to pay jointly and severally

the private respondent.

CA Modified decision; Mandarin solely liable and Bankard

absolved form responsibility.

Relevant W/N petitioner is negligent under the circumstances.

Issue(s)

The case highlights the importance of verifying credit card

information, especially when a customer offers to pay using their credit
Analysis card. It also underscores the potential consequences of refusing to
accept a valid credit card, as evidenced by the filing of a lawsuit for
damages by the private respondent. Overall, the analysis emphasizes
the importance of following proper procedures when dealing with credit
card payments to avoid legal and financial repercussions.

The court ruled that the petitioner, Miranda Villa Seafood Village, is
at fault for refusing to accept the private respondent's BANKARD
credit card. The petitioner argued that it cannot be faulted for its
 cashier's refusal as the credit card was not a legal tender.
However, the court held that the petitioner is obligated to accept
Ruling(s) & the credit card as they had an agreement with BANKARD to honor
Rationale validly issued credit cards. The court also found that the private
respondent is entitled to the stipulation conferred in favor of credit
card holders, known as a stipulation, pour autri, and that the
petitioner cannot deny or disprove the representation that "Bankard
is accepted here." Therefore, the court held that the petitioner
violated the equitable principle of estoppel by refusing to accept the
credit card and is at fault.