Title
Supreme Court
BPI Express Card Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 120639
Decision Date
Sep 25, 1998
Credit card suspended for overdue payment; user sued for damages, but court ruled in favor of issuer, citing contractual rights and no abuse.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120639)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Issuance and renewal of credit card
    • Private respondent Ricardo J. Marasigan, a lawyer, became a complimentary member of BPI Express Card Corporation (BECC) in February 1988 and was issued Card No. 100-012-5534 with a ₱3,000 credit limit and monthly billing.
    • Membership and credit limit were renewed in February 1989, increasing the limit to ₱5,000.
  • Defaults and postdated check arrangement
    • Marasigan frequently exceeded his credit limit but payments were tolerated until his October 1989 statement (₱8,987.84) remained unpaid. He was out of town and inadvertently failed to pay on time.
    • BECC demanded immediate payment of outstanding and future bills totaling ₱15,000. On November 23, 1989, Marasigan issued a postdated check (Far East Bank No. 494675) for ₱15,000, delivered to BECC staff Tess Lorenzo and held by collections head Roberto Maniquiz.
  • Suspension notice and dishonor at Café Adriatico
    • On November 28, 1989, BECC mailed Marasigan a letter informing him of temporary suspension of his card and inclusion in its caution list unless he paid within five days; there was no proof he received this before December 8.
    • On December 8, 1989, Marasigan’s card was dishonored at Café Adriatico (₱735.32). A guest paid with her own card.
  • Subsequent correspondence and legal proceedings
    • Marasigan wrote letters (December 12, 1989; December 16, 1989; March 12, 1990) rescinding the postdated check, demanding billing details, and threatening court action for humiliation.
    • BECC sent a final demand (March 21, 1990) for full payment and cash replacement of check; Marasigan replied on April 5, 1990. He then filed a complaint (May 7, 1990) for moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees before the Makati RTC.
  • Trial court and Court of Appeals decisions
    • RTC ruled Marasigan’s card suspension was abusive under Civil Code Art. 19, awarding ₱100,000 moral damages, ₱50,000 exemplary damages, and ₱20,000 attorney’s fees, less his unpaid ₱14,439.41.
    • On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification: ₱50,000 moral damages, ₱25,000 exemplary damages, and ₱10,000 attorney’s fees.

Issues:

  • Whether BECC and Marasigan entered into an agreement conditioning continued card honor on issuance of a ₱15,000 postdated check.
  • Whether BECC is liable for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees due to the card’s dishonor.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.