Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 271 views

    Bpi Vs Armovit

    Uploaded by

    Jay Mark Albis Santos
    BPI Express Credit Corporation cancelled Ma. Antonia R. Armovit's credit card without notice when she attempted to use it to pay for lunch with friends. BPI claimed Armovit had unpaid bills, while she disputed ever being in default. The court ruled that BPI's actions amounted to gross negligence sufficient to award moral and exemplary damages under the Civil Code, even without evidence of bad faith. It upheld the lower court's award of 100,000 pesos in moral damages to Armovit for the embarrassment caused, plus exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bpi Vs Armovit

    Uploaded by

    Jay Mark Albis Santos
    271 views2 pages
    BPI Express Credit Corporation cancelled Ma. Antonia R. Armovit's credit card without notice when she attempted to use it to pay for lunch with friends. BPI claimed Armovit had unpaid bills, while she disputed ever being in default. The court ruled that BPI's actions amounted to gross negligence sufficient to award moral and exemplary damages under the Civil Code, even without evidence of bad faith. It upheld the lower court's award of 100,000 pesos in moral damages to Armovit for the embarrassment caused, plus exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

    Original Description:

    Evidence

    Original Title

    Bpi vs Armovit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    BPI Express Credit Corporation cancelled Ma. Antonia R. Armovit's credit card without notice when she attempted to use it to pay for lunch with friends. BPI claimed Armovit had unpaid bills, while she disputed ever being in default. The court ruled that BPI's actions amounted to gross negligence sufficient to award moral and exemplary damages under the Civil Code, even without evidence of bad faith. It upheld the lower court's award of 100,000 pesos in moral damages to Armovit for the embarrassment caused, plus exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    271 views2 pages

    Bpi Vs Armovit

    Uploaded by

    Jay Mark Albis Santos
    BPI Express Credit Corporation cancelled Ma. Antonia R. Armovit's credit card without notice when she attempted to use it to pay for lunch with friends. BPI claimed Armovit had unpaid bills, while she disputed ever being in default. The court ruled that BPI's actions amounted to gross negligence sufficient to award moral and exemplary damages under the Civil Code, even without evidence of bad faith. It upheld the lower court's award of 100,000 pesos in moral damages to Armovit for the embarrassment caused, plus exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    163654 October 8, 2014

    BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION,* Petitioner,


    vs.
    MA. ANTONIA R. ARMOVIT, Respondent.

    Doctrine : In case of breach of contracts, moral damages may be recovered on the ground of bad
    faith.It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or
    moralobliquity. That design, however, need not always be present because negligence may
    occasionally beso gross as to amount to malice or bad faith. Hence, bad faith in the context of Article
    2220 of theCivil Code includes gross negligence.

    Facts:

    Ma. Antonia R. Armovit treated her British friends to lunch at a restaurant.She handed to the waiter her
    BPI Express Credit Card to settle the bill but to herastonishment, the waiter returned and informed that
    her card had been cancelledupon verification with the BPI Express Credit (BPI). Armovit called BPI and
    thelatter told her that her credit card had been summarily cancelled for failure to payher outstanding
    obligations. She denied having defaulted on her payments anddemanded for compensation for the
    shame and embarrassment she suffered. BPIclaimed that it send Armovit a telegraphic message
    requesting her to pay her arrearsfor three consecutive months. As she did not comply with the request,
    it temporarilysuspended her credit card with due notice to her. BPI further claimed that Armovitfailed to
    submit the required application form in order to reactivate her credit cardprivileges.Later on, Armovit
    received a telegraphic message from BPI apologizing forits error of inadvertently including her credit
    card in Caution List sent to its affiliatedmerchants. Armovit sued BPI for damages insisting that she had
    been a credit cardholder in good standing, and that she did not have any unpaid bills at the time of
    theincident. RTC ordered BPI to pay Armovit moral damages of P100,000; exemplary damages and
    attorney’s fees each in the amount of P10,000.00 which the Court of

    Appeals affirmed. BPI appealed the award of moral and exemplary damages allegingthat it is not
    negligent in dealing with Armovit.

    ISSUE:

    Is Armovit entitled to moral and exemplary damages despite the absence ofbad faith on the part of BPI?

    RULING

    Yes.

    The relationship between the credit card issuer and the credit card holder is a contractual one that is
    governed by the terms and conditions found in the card membership agreement. Such terms and
    conditions constitute the law between the parties. In case of their breach, moral damages may be
    recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Malice or bad faith
    implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
    obliquity. However, a conscious or intentional design need not always be present because negligence
    may occasionally be so gross as to amount to malice

    We hold that the CA rightly sustained the award of ₱100,000.00 as moral damages. To us, too, that
    amount was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly, the grant of exemplary damages
    was warranted under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code because BPI Express Credit acted in a reckless
    and oppressive manner. Finally, with Armovit having been forced to litigate in order to protect her rights
    and interests, she was entitled to recover attorney's fees and expenses oflitigatio

    You might also like