Case Summary (G.R. No. 209906)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Decision under review: Court of Appeals decision dated April 22, 2013 (CA); Supreme Court decision November 22, 2017. Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution. Relevant statutory and codal provisions invoked: Article 2187 (Civil Code) on manufacturers’ liability for noxious substances; Articles 2176–2187 (quasi‑delict provisions); Articles 2219 and 2220 (moral damages); Article 2231 (exemplary damages in quasi‑delicts for gross negligence); Article 2208 (attorney’s fees); Republic Act No. 3720 (food and drug law) and related administrative proceedings.
Facts of the Incident
On March 28, 1995, MeAez visited Rosante, ordered food and a bottled Sprite served with a drinking straw (customarily partly submerged). After drinking, he perceived an odd taste and a kerosene odor, experienced burning in his throat and stomach, and vomited. He showed the bottle to Rosante waitresses who reportedly smelled kerosene. He then took the bottle, sought accompaniment from a traffic assistant to Silliman University Medical Center, vomited again in the ER, and was confined for three days. A chemist from Silliman University later analyzed the bottle and reported its contents as pure kerosene.
Pleadings, Claims, and Defenses
MeAez sued CCBPI and Rosante seeking P3,000,000 actual damages, P4,000,000 moral damages, P500,000 exemplary damages, P100,000 attorney’s fees, and costs. Rosante asserted it had merely received the bottle in the ordinary course and denied responsibility, arguing it was not expected to taste or test each opened bottle. CCBPI moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the complaint did not allege elements of liability under Article 2187 or tort law adequately, and (2) MeAez failed to exhaust administrative remedies under RA 3720 (prior resort to the Bureau of Food and Drugs).
Trial Evidence and Procedural Course
During trial MeAez introduced medical bills and records (including later U.S. medical examinations), and the laboratory result identifying pure kerosene in the bottle. The RTC directed submission of memoranda and thereafter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence; the court highlighted substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the bottle (36‑hour lapse and multiple transfers), absence of several vital witnesses, and the surprising failure of restaurant employees to detect a distinct kerosene odor if the bottle indeed contained pure kerosene.
RTC Ruling — Grounds for Dismissal
The RTC dismissed MeAez’s complaint. Key findings were: (1) failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the Sprite bottle, which was central evidence; (2) the laboratory result showing pure kerosene was inconsistent with a negligence theory that would expect traces or adulteration rather than pure substitution; (3) unexplained absence of witnesses and other evidentiary gaps; and (4) the requirement to first ventilate the grievance with the Bureau of Food and Drugs under RA 3720. The RTC concluded insufficient evidence existed to support MeAez’s claims.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Awards
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA held that prior resort to the Bureau of Food and Drugs was not a condition precedent to a civil damages action under Article 2187 and that Article 2187 could ground the claim without administrative exhaustion. The CA nonetheless found MeAez not entitled to actual damages (physician observed an “uneventful” hospital stay and opined only a small amount was ingested). The CA awarded moral damages P200,000; exemplary damages P200,000; attorney’s fees P50,000; costs; and imposed interest (6% p.a. from May 5, 1995 and 12% p.a. from finality until paid).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered whether the CA erred in (1) awarding moral damages, (2) awarding exemplary damages, (3) awarding attorney’s fees, and (4) holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies before the Bureau of Food and Drugs was unnecessary.
Supreme Court: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that exhaustion of administrative remedies under RA 3720 is not a condition precedent to a civil action for damages under Article 2187. Article 2187 arises from quasi‑delict principles and imposes civil liability on manufacturers/processors for injuries caused by noxious substances even absent contractual privity; therefore the administrative remedy is not a prerequisite for pursuing civil damages in court.
Supreme Court: Moral Damages — Legal Standard and Application
The Court emphasized that moral damages are recoverable only in the specific and exhaustive categories enumerated in Article 2219 and supplementary grounds in Article 2220. Although quasi‑delicts causing physical injuries fall within Article 2219(2), the Court found MeAez failed to prove physical injuries with competent and preponderant evidence. Medical testimony was equivocal: hospital records and physician statements described the poisoning as mild and the hospital stay “uneventful,” without clear description of the nature or extent of physical injury. Because physical injury was not sufficiently established, the statutory prerequisite for moral damages under Article 2219(2) was not met; therefore moral damages could not be awarded.
Supreme Court: Exemplary Damages — Gross Negligence Requirement
Exemplary damages in quasi‑delict cases require proof of gross negligence per Article 2231. The CA’s reliance on a strict‑liability principle for manufacturers did not substitute for the statutory gross negligence requirement for exemplary damages. The Supreme Court found MeAez presented no evidence demonstrating gross negligence by CCBPI: beyond the opened bottle containing pure kerosene, there was no proof of how the substitution or contamination occurred, no demonstration of CCBPI’s culpable conduct, and unresolved chain‑of‑custody issues. The RTC’s observations (36‑hour lapse, multiple transfers, lack of witness testimony, and the surprising failure of Rosante employees to detect kerosene odor) remained persuasive. Accordingly, exemplary damages were unwarranted.
Supreme Court: Attorney’s Fees — Statutory Conditions Not Met
Article 2208 permits recovery of attorney’s fees only in specified circumstances (including when exemplary damages are awarded). The CA’s judgment awarded P50,000 in attorney’s fees without explanatory justification in the body of its decision. Because exemplary damages were not supportable and no other Article 2208 ground was established (e.g., gross bad faith, clearly unfounded action, o
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209906)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) assailing:
- The Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 22, 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 02361, which granted the appeal from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and awarded damages to respondent Ernani Guingona MeAez; and
- The CA Resolution dated October 11, 2013 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- The RTC (Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 39, Dumaguete City) had earlier dismissed MeAez’s complaint in Civil Case No. 11316 by Decision dated October 29, 2007 for insufficiency of evidence.
- The Supreme Court granted review, found the petition meritorious in part, and rendered the final disposition described below.
Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
- MeAez, a research scientist and frequent customer of Rosante Bar and Restaurant (Rosante) in Dumaguete City, visited Rosante on March 28, 1995 at about 3:00 p.m. and ordered beer, pizza, and a bottled softdrink labeled "Sprite."
- An opened bottle of Sprite with a drinking straw inserted (one end submerged, the other protruding) was served with MeAez’s pizza order.
- After taking a bite of pizza and drinking from the straw, MeAez perceived the liquid to taste different from Sprite, described the substance as repulsive and smelling of kerosene, and felt a burning sensation in his throat and stomach with a vomiting urge.
- MeAez attempted to reach the toilet to vomit but vomited on a lavatory immediately outside the toilet; he then returned to his table, picked up the bottle, brought it to where the waitresses were, and asserted that he had been served kerosene.
- According to MeAez’s account, the waitresses smelled the bottle, confirmed the kerosene odor, and the bottle was passed among them; MeAez then took the bottle and sought assistance from a person manning traffic outside the restaurant, identified later as Gerardo Ovas, Jr. of the Traffic Assistant Unit.
- Ovas accompanied MeAez to Silliman University Medical Center (SUMC) and brought the bottle with them; MeAez vomited again in the Emergency Room and was confined in hospital for three days.
- A representative from Rosante reportedly informed hospital staff that Rosante would take care of hospital and medical bills.
- The incident was reported to the police and recorded in the Police Blotter.
- Prof. Chester Dumancas, a licensed chemist of Silliman University, examined the bottle and identified the liquid inside as pure kerosene.
- As a result, MeAez filed a complaint against CCBPI and Rosante seeking:
- Actual damages: P3,000,000.00;
- Moral damages: P4,000,000.00;
- Exemplary damages: P500,000.00;
- Attorney’s fees: P100,000.00;
- Cost of suit.
Defendants’ Pleadings, Defenses and Motions
- Rosante’s version:
- Alleged that MeAez felt only nausea and did not vomit in the toilet; disputed that waitresses confirmed the bottle contained kerosene, claiming MeAez refused to have waitresses smell it.
- Pleaded as an affirmative defense that Rosante merely received the bottle of Sprite from CCBPI as part of routine and was not expected to open or taste every product received to ensure safety for customers.
- Alleged Robert Sy was not the registered owner but only involved in management.
- CCBPI’s position and motion to dismiss:
- Moved to dismiss for failure to allege requisites of liability under Article 2187 of the Civil Code and for failure to state a cause of action under tort/quasi-delict principles.
- Asserted MeAez failed to allege that CCBPI used noxious or harmful substances in manufacture of its products; complaint merely alleged a bottle bearing the name SPRITE contained kerosene.
- Argued MeAez failed to exhaust administrative remedies and prior resort to the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFD) under R.A. No. 3720 (as amended), citing provisions that the Director may give notice and afford hearing through the Board of Food and Drug Inspection.
- Contended that strict product liability doctrine is an American creation and not adopted by the Supreme Court, thus only persuasive at most.
Pre-trial, Trial Evidence and Exhibits
- MeAez introduced several exhibits to substantiate claimed damages, including:
- Explanation of Benefits and Statements of Account from healthcare providers showing he underwent examinations in the United States as a consequence of the incident.
- His professional profile as a scientist to support claims of damages from delayed work.
- Bottle of Sprite: examined by licensed chemist Prof. Chester Dumancas who identified the contents as pure kerosene.
- Hospital records and medical abstract (Exhibit "R") were in the record, with a diagnosis describing the degree of poisoning as mild and noting minimal adverse physical effects.
- Testimony of Dr. Juanito Magbanua, Jr., MeAez’s attending physician, stated that MeAez apparently ingested only a small amount of kerosene because adverse effects were minimal and no serious trouble was observed on examination.
RTC Decision — Findings and Rationale
- The RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
- Key findings:
- The evidence presented by MeAez had serious gaps, particularly failure to establish chain of custody of the Sprite bottle, which was central to the complaint.
- Thirty-six hours lapsed between the incident and submission of the bottle for laboratory examination; the bottle changed hands multiple times during that period.
- The RTC found MeAez failed to present several vital witnesses to prove continuous custody, casting doubt on veracity of allegations.
- The laboratory result showed the bottle contained pure kerosene; the RTC observed that a result showing traces of kerosene in Sprite would be more consonant with negligence claims.
- It was surprising to t