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 Credit Card
Pertinent issued by BANKARD. The waiter accepted but returned ten minutes
Facts 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 card. It also
Analysis 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 the credit card
Ruling(s) & as they had an agreement with BANKARD to honor validly issued
Rationale 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.