Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED ; and the Decisions of the trial courts are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . No costs." [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts Petitioner operates a credit card system through which it extends credit accommodations to its cardholders for the purchase of goods and services from its member establishments.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED ; and the Decisions of the trial courts are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . No costs." [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts Petitioner operates a credit card system through which it extends credit accommodations to its cardholders for the purchase of goods and services from its member establishments. The purchases are later on paid for by cardholders upon receipt of the billings or statements of account from the company. Respondent Efren S. Teodoro was one such cardholder. On December 14, 1990, he applied for membership with petitioner. After his application was approved, he was issued Citibank, N.A. Mastercard No. 5423-3920-4457-7009. Under the terms and conditions governing the use of the Citibank credit card, the cardholder undertakes to pay all the purchases made using the card within the period indicated on the statement of account or within thirty (30) days from the date or dates of its use. Charges that remain unpaid within the period fixed in the monthly statement of account shall earn interest at the rate of 3.5 percent per month plus a penalty fee equivalent to 5 percent of the amount due for every month or even a fraction of a month's delay. Respondent made various purchases through his credit card. Accordingly, he was billed by petitioner for those purchases, for which he tendered various payments. Petitioner claims that as of January 20, 1995, the obligations of respondent stood at P191,693.25, inclusive of interest and service charges. Several times it demanded payment from him, but he refused to pay, claiming that the amount demanded did not correspond to his actual obligations. His refusal prompted petitioner to file a Complaint for collection on January 25, 1996 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-092 and raffled to Branch 133. The RTC, in an Order dated April 23, 1996, dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the amount involved. The case was then transferred to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati City, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 51586 and raffled to Branch 66. During the trial, petitioner presented several sales invoices or charge slips, which added up to only P24,388.36. Although mere photocopies of the originals, the invoices were marked in evidence as Exhibits "F" to "F-4." Because all these copies appeared to bear the signatures of respondent, the trial court deemed them sufficient proof of his purchases with the use of the credit card. Accordingly, the MTC in its July 25, 2000 Decision [5] ordered him to pay petitioner the amount of P24,388.36 plus interest and penalty fee. The material portion of the Decision reads: "[Petitioner] is claiming that [respondent] made use of its credit card. And as of January 20, 1995, [respondent's] obligation to [petitioner] ballooned to the sum of P191,693.25. "This is clear according to [pe
VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHELPS DODGE PHILS., INC..
G.R. No. 126486 -
CaseG.R. NO. 136415 - VIRGILIO P. CEZAR, VS. HON. HELEN RICAFORT-BAUTISTA IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, BRANCH 260, CITY OF PARAÑAQUE AND SPECIFIED MATERIALS, CO..
G.R. NO. 136415 -
CaseG.R. No. 177720 - ELISEO R. FRANCISCO, JR., VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 177720 -