GAISANO SUPERSTORE, INC.

v SPOUSES RHEDEY
G.R. No. 206042 | JULY 6, 2022
INTING, J.
DOCTRINE: Temperate damages can be claimed when there is a financial loss. In
situations where it is not possible to determine the actual loss, the court has the power
to decide on the amount based on the specifics of the case. The award should be fair
and reasonable.
FACTS: Spouses Rhedey bought several Cadbury chocolate bars from the Gaisano
Superstore in September 2007 and January 29, 2008. After opening the bars, the
respondents found that they were infested with maggots, maggot eggs, and cobwebs.
The incident was reported to Cadbury Adams Philippines, Inc. (Cadbury) who agreed to
compensate the spouses and investigate the issue.
Cadbury's investigation was inconclusive, so the respondents filed a complaint with the
Department of Health (DOH). The DOH conducted laboratory testing on a chocolate bar
purchased from the Petitioner and they found this to be unfit for consumption. Despite
this finding, the DOH dismissed the complaint because they didn't have jurisdiction over
the respondents' claim for damages.
The respondents tried to demand compensation from Cadbury again but the company
was unresponsive. As a result, the respondents filed a case against the company and
Gaisano Superstore in the RTC seeking damages for the alleged fraudulent behavior of
selling contaminated products and not providing compensation.
Gaisano Superstore claimed in its response that the respondents' complaint was invalid
due to two reasons: firstly, the complaint was filed too late, almost four years after the
purchase of the chocolates, and therefore is barred by laches and prescription.
Secondly, there was no proof of purchase of the chocolate bars attached to the
complaint.
On the other hand, the case against Cadbury was archived by RTC for failure to acquire
jurisdiction over it. 
On December 9, 2016, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondents and found Gaisano
Superstore liable for damages for selling contaminated food products under the
Consumer Act of the Philippines. The court acknowledged that the respondents had
suffered pecuniary loss, but the exact amount couldn't be determined, so they were
awarded P50,000.00 as temperate damages. Additionally, the RTC awarded
P10,000.00 to the respondents for litigation expenses. 
The Petitioner filed for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it. Consequently, the
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA found that the RTC's factual findings
were supported by evidence and that the petitioner was negligent in selling
contaminated Cadbury chocolates to respondents. The CA explained that it is the duty
of establishments, like the petitioner, to exercise due care and diligence in ensuring the
safety of perishable goods they sell. 
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it on July 6, 2020.
Consequently, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is liable for damages despite respondents' failure to
present the receipts of the purchase of the Cadbury chocolates. 
RULING: The petitioner is responsible for paying damages to the respondents based on
Article 2176 of the Civil Code. 
The CA was correct in affirming the award of damages imposed by the RTC. According
to Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages can be granted when a pecuniary
loss has been incurred but cannot be precisely proven.
The lower courts concluded that the petitioner was at fault for selling contaminated
chocolate bars to the respondents based on the facts presented in the case. The court
finds this conclusion to be definitive because the evidence presented convinces the
court that the respondents experienced some financial harm as a result of the
petitioner's negligence. 
Although it is difficult to determine the precise amount of damage suffered,it is only
proper that the respondents are fairly awarded.