Coca Cola vs C.A.

G.R. No. 110295

Prepared by:
Edson L. Vicente
Facts
The private respondent in this case was the owner of a school canteen
that sold soft drinks (including Coke and Sprite) and other goods to
both students and the public. One day she received some complaints
from parents that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks she sold contained
fiber-like matter and other foreign substances or particles. Testing
done by the Department of Health confirmed the presence of these
substances. As a consequence of that discovery, her sales severely
plummeted, eventually costing her her job and shop.
 She demanded payment of damages from the petitioner
which the latter refused.
The petitioner anchored its arguments on failure of the
private respondent to exhaust administrative remedies and
prescription. The private respondent contended that her
complaint was one for damages which did not involve
administrative action and that her cause of action was based
on an injury to plaintiff’s right which can be brought within
four years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
 The trial court granted the petitioner’s
motion to dismiss, reasoning that the complaint
was based on a contract and not a quasi-delict.
The Court of Appeals annulled the trial
court’s orders, ruling that petitioner’s complaint
was based on a quasi-delict and not for a breach
of warranty. The action had not prescribed yet.
Issue
Whether or not the action for damages should be
treated as one for breach of implied warranty
against hidden defects or merchantability or one
for quasi-delict
Ruling
The action is one for quasi-delict.
The allegations in the complaint, that there was reckless
and negligent manufacture of “adulterated food items
intended to be sold for public consumption” on the part of
petitioner, supported the public respondent’s conclusion that
the cause of action was based on a quasi-delict.
The vendee’s remedies against a vendor with
respect to the warranties against hidden defects
of or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not
limited to those prescribed in Article 1567 of the
Civil Code. The vendor could likewise be liable
for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, and an action based thereon may be
brought by the vendee.
As a general rule, a pre-existing contract
between the parties bars the applicability
of the law on quasi-delict. An exception
to the rule is that the liability itself may
be deemed to arise from quasi-delict,
such as the acts which break the contract.
The Court has repeatedly held in past
cases that the existence of a contract
between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against
the other and the consequent recovery of
damages therefor.