PUGEDA, ROMAN RUIZ P.

2023-0133718

CASE DIGEST

ROMULO ABROGAR and ERLINA ABROGAR v. COSMOS BOTTLING COMPANY and

INTERGAMES, INC.
G. R. No. 164749, 15 March 2017

FACTS:
Rommel Abrogar (Rommel), the son of the plaintiffs, joined the “1st Pop Cola Junior
Marathon” organized by Intergames, Inc. (Intergames) and sponsored by Cosmos Bottling
Company (Cosmos) on June 15, 1980. During the 10-kilometer marathon, Rommel was hit
by a passenger jeepney wherein he sustained severe head injuries and eventually died later
that day despite treatments provided by Ospital ng Bagong Lipunan.

The plaintiffs filed a case in the RTC against the defendants and claimed that the defendants
failed to provide adequate safety and precautionary measures and to exercise due diligence
required of them by the nature of their undertaking. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Cosmos then filed a cross-claim against Intergames which they won.

In this case, plaintiffs are seeking to be awarded damages for loss of earning capacity on the
part of Rommel, hence the appeal.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not appellant Intergames was negligent in its conduct of the marathon
and if said negligence was the proximate cause of death of Rommel Abrogar.
2. Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to the actual, moral, and exemplary damages
granted to them by the Trial Court.

HELD:
1. Yes. Cosmos and Intergames were both liable for the death of Rommel due to
negligence in conducting the marathon.

JUAN F. VILLAROEL v. BERNARDINO ESTRADA

GR No. 47362, 19 December 1940

FACTS:
Juan Villaroel’s mother, Alejandro Callao, loaned an amount of P1,000 from Mariano Estrada
and Severina, payable after 7 years. Alejandro died, as well as Mariano Estrada and Severina,
leaving Juan Villaroel as the sole heir of the former and Bernardino Estrada of the latter.
Juan signed a document declaring that he will pay the loan with a 12% interest per annum.
The CFI ordered Juan Villaroel to fulfill the payment owed but Juan appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the debt is still collectible, considering that the original loan had already
prescribed.

HELD:
Yes, the debt is still collectible, despite the prescription of the original loan since Juan has
entered a promise with Bernardino. The promise is a valid contract, even if it is based on a
debt that has already prescribed.

SAGRADA ORDEN v. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION

GR No. 3756, 30 June 1952

FACTS:
Sagrada Orden, the plaintiff, is the original title owner of a piece of real property in Pandacan,
Manila. The property was sold by the Alien Property Custodian Corporation of the United
States of America during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines to a Japanese
corporation, Taiwan Tekkosho, for a sum of P140. Once the war was over, National Coconut
Corporation (NCC), a government owned corporation, took possession of the property. The
NCC then made repairs to the warehouse and sublet a third of it to a Dioscoro Sarile.
Sagrada Orden filed claims against NCC to collect rentals for its occupation on the property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not NCC is liable to pay rentals to Sagrada Orden for the occupation of the
property.

HELD:
No, NCC is not liable to pay rentals to Sagrada Orden on the grounds that the occupation of
the property was with the permission of the Alien Property Custodian Corporation and that
no implied agreement has been made to pay the rent. There was no obligation on the part of
NCC, as obligations must come from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts and
there was none that required NCC to pay the rent.
VINCENTE D. CABANTING and LALAINE V. CABANTING v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS
BANK, INC.
GR No. 201927, 17 February 2016

FACTS:
The petitioners bought a motor vehicle, 2002 Mitsubishi Adventure SS MT, from Diamond
Motors Corporation payable in monthly installments. The petitioners also wrote a
promissory note with Chattel Mortgage for Diamond Motors Corporation in order to secure
their obligation. On the execution of the promissory note, Diamond Motors assigned its
rights, title, and interest to BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc (BPI). The petitioners, unfortunately,
failed to provide payment for three consecutive monthly installments. BPI, therefore filed a
complaint for replevin and damages against the petitioners.

ISSUE:
Whether or not BPI may be held entitled to the possession of the motor vehicle subject of
the instant case for replevin, or the payment of its value and damages, without proof of prior
demand

HELD:
Yes, the CA is correct in ruling that the obligation of the petitioners is due and payable
without prior demand as the promissory note stipulates that failure to pay the amount due
makes the entire outstanding balance due and payable without need for a notice or demand.

THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. ANA GRACE ROSALES and YO
YUK TO
GR No. 183204, 13 January 2014\

FACTS:
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank), the petitioner, is a domestic banking
corporation. Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To, the respondents, are joint owners of a Join
Peso Account with Metrobank, opened in 2000. The account had a balance of
P2,515,693.92 as of August 4, 2004. In May 2002, Rosales accompanied a client of hers, Liu
Chiu Fang, to open a savings account with Metrobank, acting as an interpreter as Liu Chiu
Fang could only speak Mandarin. On March 3, 2003, the respondents opened a Joint Dollar
Account with Metrobank with an initial deposit of $14,000.

On July 31, 2003, Metrobank issued a “Hold Out” order against the accounts of the
respondents. Metrobank filed a criminal case as well against the respondents for Estafa
through False Pretenses, Misrepresentation, Deceit, and Use of Falsified Documents.
Metrobank accused that the respondent, Rosales, and an unidentified woman are
responsible for the unauthorized withdrawal of $75,000 from the account of Liu Chiu Fang
as the Metrobank discovered that the serial numbers of the dollar notes the respondents
deposited on their Joint Dollar Account were the same as those withdrawn by the imposter,
with an amount of $11,800.

The respondents filed a complaint for Breach of Obligation and Contract with Damages in
the RTC on September 10, 2004 against Metrobank. They alleged that they attempted
several times to withdraw their deposits but were unable to because Metrobank had placed
their accounts under "Hold Out" status where no explanation was given as to why the order
was issued. Petitioner alleged that respondents have no cause of action because it has a valid
reason for issuing the "Hold Out" order. It averred that due to the fraudulent scheme of
respondent Rosales, it was compelled to reimburse Liu Chiu Fang the amount of $75,000
and to file a criminal complaint for Estafa against respondent Rosales.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner breached its contract with the respondents

HELD:
The SC ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered the petitioner to pay them damages, as
the reliance on the “Hold Out” clause in the Application and Agreement for Deposit Account
is misplaced. The "Hold Out" clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation
arising from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 115779 of the Civil Code,
to wit: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, petitioner failed to
show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict,
or quasi-delict. And although a criminal case was filed by petitioner against respondent
Rosales, this is not enough reason for petitioner to issue a "Hold Out" order as the case is still
pending and no final judgment of conviction has been rendered against respondent Rosales.
In fact, it is significant to note that at the time the petitioner issued the "Hold Out" order, the
criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that respondent Rosales is not
liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for petitioner to
issue the "Hold Out" order.

It was found that the petitioner acted in bad faith when it breached its contract with
respondents as well as in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner
when it refused to release the deposits of respondents without any legal basis. The
respondents are entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.