Title
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Menez
Case
G.R. No. 209906
Decision Date
Nov 22, 2017
A customer suffered harm after drinking Sprite contaminated with kerosene, sued Coca-Cola and the restaurant, but claims were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209906)

Key Dates

  • Incident: March 28, 1995
  • RTC Decision: October 29, 2007
  • CA Decision: April 22, 2013
  • CA Resolution (denying reconsideration): October 11, 2013
  • Supreme Court Decision: November 22, 2017

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 2187 (liability for harmful substances), 2176–2186 (quasi-delicts), 2208 (attorney’s fees), 2219–2220 (moral damages), 2231 (exemplary damages)
  • Republic Act No. 3720, as amended (Food and Drugs Act)

Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

On March 28, 1995, MeAez ordered beer, pizza, and a bottled Sprite at Rosante Bar and Restaurant. When he drank through the restaurant’s customary straw, he detected a kerosene odor and experienced throat and stomach burning, followed by vomiting. He carried the bottle outside, where waitresses confirmed its kerosene smell. Traffic assistant Gerardo Ovas, Jr. accompanied MeAez to Silliman University Medical Center, where MeAez was confined for three days. Laboratory analysis by a licensed chemist identified the bottle’s contents as pure kerosene. MeAez filed suit against CCBPI and Rosante, claiming actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Rosante denied liability, asserting it simply received the bottled product unopened. CCBPI moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause under Article 2187 and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. 3720. At trial, MeAez presented medical and financial evidence of his confinement and subsequent examinations abroad; the case was submitted on memoranda.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of proof. It emphasized the disrupted chain of custody during the 36-hour period before laboratory examination, the absence of key witnesses, and the implausibility that restaurant employees failed to notice pure kerosene’s odor. The court further held that MeAez must first avail himself of administrative remedies before BFD under R.A. 3720. Both defendants’ counterclaims were also dismissed.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that prior resort to administrative remedies under R.A. 3720 is not a condition precedent to a quasi-delict claim under Article 2187. It found no proof of serious physical injury, denying actual damages. Nonetheless, it awarded MeAez moral damages of ₱200,000, exemplary damages of ₱200,000, attorney’s fees of ₱50,000, and costs, all with statutory interest.

Issues

  1. Whether moral damages were properly awarded.
  2. Whether exemplary damages were properly awarded.
  3. Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded.
  4. Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies under R.A. 3720 was required.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Doctrine of Prior Resort. The 1987 Constitution and Article 2187 govern CCBPI’s liability. Quasi-delict claims under Article 2176 et seq., including Article 2187, do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.
  2. Moral Damages. Awardable only under the exclusive circumstances enumerated in Articles 2219 and 2220 (e.g., physical injury from quasi-delict). MeAez failed to present clear, credible evidence of physical injuries; medical testimony described only minimal, equivocal adverse effects. Mora

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.