Atienza, Zia Dennise

Dela Cruz, Genevieve Mari

Pagbilao, Raymond Eigel
So, Abigaile
Tuazon, Barbra Mae

FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 108164
February 23, 1995

FACTS:
In October 1986, private respondent Luis A. Luna applied for, and was accorded,
a FAREASTCARD issued by petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) at
its Pasig Branch. Upon his request, the bank also issued a supplemental card to private
respondent Clarita S. Luna, however she lost it and FEBTC was forthwith informed. In
order to replace the lost card, Clarita submitted an affidavit of loss. On October 6, 1988,
Luis tendered a despedida lunch for a close friend and another guest at the Bahia Rooftop
Restaurant of the Hotel Intercontinental Manila and to pay for it he presented his
FAREASTCARD however, the card was not honored and was forced to pay in cash the
bill amounting to P588.13 and thereafter felt embarrassed by this incident.
Luis Luna, through counsel, demanded from FEBTC the payment for damages.
Adrian V. Festejo, the vice-president of the bank, expressed the bank's apologies to Luis.
In his letter, dated November 3, 1988, Festejo, in part, said: In cases when a card is
reported to our office as lost, FAREASTCARD undertakes the necessary action to avert
its unauthorized use (such as tagging the card as hot listed), as it is always our intention
to protect our cardholders. An investigation of your case however, revealed that
FAREASTCARD failed to inform you about its security policy. Furthermore, an
overzealous employee of the Bank's Credit Card Department did not consider the
possibility that it may have been you who was presenting the card at that time (for which
reason, the unfortunate incident occurred). Festejo also sent a letter to the Manager of the
Bahia Rooftop Restaurant to assure the latter that private respondents were "very valued
clients" of FEBTC. William Anthony King, Food and Beverage Manager of the
Intercontinental Hotel, wrote back to say that the credibility of private respondent had
never been "in question."

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not there was a breach of contract between petitioner and respondent.
Whether or not petitioner is liable for quasi-delict.

HELD:

Atienza, Zia Dennise

Dela Cruz, Genevieve Mari
Pagbilao, Raymond Eigel
So, Abigaile
Tuazon, Barbra Mae

JACINTO TANGUILIG vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 117190.
January 2, 1997
FACTS:
In 1987 petitioner Tanguilig proposed to respondent Herce Jr. to construct a
windmill system for him, they agreed on the consideration of P60,000.00. Respondent
paid petitioner a down payment of P30,000.00 and an installment payment of P15,000.00,
leaving a balance of P15,000.00.
In 1988, due to the refusal and failure of respondent to pay the balance, petitioner
filed a complaint to collect the amount. In his Answer before the trial court respondent
denied the claim saying that he had already paid this amount to the San Pedro General
Merchandising Inc. (SPGMI) which constructed the deep well to which the windmill
system was to be connected. According to respondent, since the deep well formed part of
the system the payment he tendered to SPGMI should be credited to his account by
petitioner. Moreover, assuming that he owed petitioner a balance of P15,000.00, this
should be offset by the defects in the windmill system which caused the structure to
collapse after a strong wind hit their place.
Petitioner denied that the construction of a deep well was included in the
agreement to build the windmill system, for the contract price of P60,000.00 was solely
for the windmill assembly and its installation, exclusive of other incidental materials
needed for the project. He also disowned any obligation to repair or reconstruct the
system and insisted that he delivered it in good and working condition to respondent who
accepted the same without protest. Besides, its collapse was attributable to a typhoon, a
force majeure, which relieved him of any liability.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the collapse of the windmill be attributed to Fortuitous Events
which extinguishes the liability of Tanguilig.
HELD:
Petitioner failed to show that the collapse of the windmill was due solely to a
fortuitous event. Interestingly, the evidence does not disclose that there was actually a
typhoon on the day the windmill collapsed. Petitioner merely stated that there was a
"strong wind." But a strong wind in this case cannot be fortuitous unforeseeable nor
unavoidable. On the contrary, a strong wind should be present in places where windmills
are constructed, otherwise the windmills will not turn.

The Court has consistently held that in order for a party to claim exemption from
liability by reason of fortuitous event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code the event should
be the sole and proximate cause of the loss or destruction of the object of the contract. In
Nakpil vs. Court of Appeals, four (4) requisites must concur: (a) the cause of the breach
of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be
either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible
for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and, (d) the debtor must be free
from any participation in or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.