REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

Eddie C. Olalia,

Appellant

CA GR CV NO. 3018

-versus- RTC CIVIL CASE NO.

05-401

For: Motion for

Reconsideration on the

decision dated

November

25, 1994

BPI Express Card Corporation,

Appellee

Pursuant to the

Notice of this Honorable Court,

Appellant

Eddie C. Olalia

By counsel most respectfully submits his

1

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

SUBJECT INDEX

CONTENTS

PAGE

COVER PAGE

1

SUBJECT INDEX

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

3

ASSIGNMET OF ERRORS

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4-8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8-11

ISSUES

11-12

ARGUMENTS

12-15

A. The court failed to prove that the extension card in the name of Cristina G. Olalia was validly issued and received by Eddie C. Olalia. There are two requirements before an extension/supplementary card is issued. First, payment of the necessary fee, and second, submission of an application for the purpose. None of these requirements were shown to have been complied with by Olalia. The court found that in Olalia’s applications for the original as well as the renewal card, he never applied for an extension card in the name of his wife. BECC also failed to show any receipt for any fee given in payment for the purpose of securing an extension card.

B. The court committed mistake in rendering a decision that Eddie C. Olalia is responsible for the purchases made from the extension card. Appellant cannot be held responsible because of the fact that BECC failed to establish that the extension card in the name of

2

Cristina G. Olalia was validly issued and received by him. The time appellant applied credit card with BECC in 1991, he and his wife Cristina were already divorced. Also by the time the extension card, which was under the name of Cristina G. Olalia, was issued and allegedly received by the appellant, Cristina was no longer in the Philippines. She left for States in the year 1986. PRAYER

15-16

APPENDIX

16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

PAGE

Ermitaño vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127246, 306 SCRA 218, 244 (1999) 14

Palmares vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126490, 288 SCRA 422, 433 (1998) 14

Qua Chee Gan vs. La Union & Rock, Co., Ltd., 98 Phil. 85 14

BOOKS

Page 726, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated by Edgardo Paras (2012)

14

PHILIPPINE STATUTE

3

Article 1377 of the CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

14

WEBSITE

Paragraph 2, Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of BPI 6, 10Express Credit Cards, at www.bpicards.com/page/60

Paragraph 10, Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of BPI 13Express Credit Cards, at www.bpicards.com/page/60

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

The trial court committed the following errors:

1. The court failed to prove that the extension card in the name of

Cristina G. Olalia was validly issued and received by Eddie C.

Olalia.

2. The court rendered a decision that Eddie C. Olalia is responsible

for the purchases made from the extension card thus ordering

him to pay the total amount of One Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand

Two Hundred Ninety Pesos and Ninety-Seven Centavos (P136,

290.97) Philippine Currency.

4

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Action

1.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the court a quo granting

the Motion for Reconsideration, dated December 20, 1994,

filed by the appellee against the appellant. It alleged that the

appellant is responsible for the purchases arising from the use

of the extension card since he allegedly received the same, as

evidenced by his signature appearing in the Renewal Card

Acknowledgement Receipt and by the express provision of

paragraph 2 of the terms and conditions governing the use

and issuance of a BPI Express Card, making the cardholder

and his extension jointly and severally liable for all purchases

and availments made through the use of the card.

1.2. The case arose from the time when appellant, Olalia, applied

in the credit card system of the appellee, BPI Express Card

Corporation (BECC). Appellant was granted membership and

credit accommodation with BECC. Appellant’s card expired

and a renewal card was issued. BECC also issued another card

which was an extension of the appellant’s credit card in the

name of Cristina G. Olalia, appellant’s ex-wife. BECC alleges

that the extension card was delivered and received by the

appellant at the same time as the renewal card. It was found

that the extension card in the name of Cristina G. Olalia was

used for purchases made from March to April 1991,

particularly in the province of Iloilo and the City of Bacolod.

5

Total unpaid charges from the use of this card amounted to

One Hundred One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Four and

Fifty-Four Centavos (P101, 844. 54) Philippine Currency.

Summary of the Proceedings

1.3. BECC sent a demand letter to the appellant, to which the

latter denied liability saying that said purchases were not

made under his own credit card and that he did not apply for

nor receive the extension card in the name of his wife. In an

Order dated September 29, 1995, Cristina G. Olalia was

dropped as defendant by the trial court.1

1.4. A case for collection was filed by BECC before the RTC but

appellant only admits responsibility for the amount of Thirteen

Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three and Twenty-Seven

Centavos (P13, 883.27) Philippine Currency, representing

purchases made under his own credit card. After trial on the

merits, a decision was rendered as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Eddie

C. Olalia to pay plaintiff the sum of Thirteen Thousand Eight

Hundred Eighty-Three Pesos and Twenty-seven Centavos

(P13, 883.27), Philippine Currency with interest thereon at the

legal rate from June 18, 1991, until fully paid; and to pay the

costs. SO ORDERED. ”2

1 Records, p. 38.2 Rollo, p.18.

6

1.5. From the aforesaid decision, a Motion for Reconsideration was

filed, alleging that Olalia should also be held liable for the

purchases arising from the use of the extension card since he

allegedly received the same, as evidenced by his signature

appearing in the Renewal Card Acknowledgement Receipt and

by the express provision of paragraph 2 of the terms and

conditions governing the use and issuance of a BPI Express

Card, making the cardholder and his extension jointly and

severally liable for all purchases and availments made

through the use of the card.3

1.6. On April 28, 1995, the Motion for Reconsideration was granted

and an Order was issued, stating:

“Defendant Eddie C. Olalia has not filed any reaction paper up

to the present relative to plaintiff’s MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION dated December 20, 1994.

Finding the allegations in said motion to be meritorious, the

same is hereby granted.

WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of the decision dated

November 25, 1994, is reconsidered and accordingly

amended/corrected to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Eddie

C. Olalia to pay plaintiff the sum of One Hundred Thirty Six

Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Pesos and Ninety-seven

Centavos (P136, 290.97) Philippine Currency, as of October

27, 1991.

3See paragraph 2, Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of BPI Express Credit Cards, available at www.bpicards.com/page/60.

7

SO ORDERED.”4

Rulings and Orders of the Court

1.7. The dispositive portion of the decision dated November 25,

1994:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Eddie

C. Olalia to pay plaintiff the sum of Thirteen Thousand Eight

Hundred Eighty-Three Pesos and Twenty-seven Centavos

(P13, 883.27), Philippine Currency with interest thereon at the

legal rate from June 18, 1991, until fully paid; and to pay the

costs.

SO ORDERED.”5

1.8. The dispositive portion of the Order granting the Motion for

Reconsideration dated April 28, 1995:

“Defendant Eddie C. Olalia has not filed any reaction paper up

to the present relative to plaintiff’s MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION dated December 20, 1994.

Finding the allegations in said motion to be meritorious, the

same is hereby granted.

WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of the decision dated

November 25, 1994, is reconsidered and accordingly

amended/corrected to read as follows:

4 Rollo, p.20.5 Rollo, p.18.

8

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Eddie

C. Olalia to pay plaintiff the sum of One Hundred Thirty Six

Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Pesos and Ninety-seven

Centavos (P136, 290.97) Philippine Currency, as of October

27, 1991.

SO ORDERED.”6

1.9. Hence, this appeal.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

2.1. Petitioner operates a credit card system under the name of

BPI Express Card Corporation (BECC) through which it extends

credit accommodations to its cardholders for the purchase of

goods and other services from member establishments of

petitioner to be reimbursed later on by the cardholder upon

proper billing.

2.2. Respondent Eddie C. Olalia applied7 for and was granted

membership and credit accommodation with BECC. BECC

Card No. 020100-3-00-0281667 was issued in his name with a

credit limit of Five Thousand Pesos (P5, 000.00).

2.3. In January 1991, Olalia’s card expired and a renewal card was

issued. BECC also issued Card No. 020100-2-01-0281667 in

the name of Cristina G. Olalia, respondent’s ex-wife. This

second card was an extension of Olalia’s credit card. BECC

6 Rollo, p.207 Records, at p.4.

9

alleges that the extension card was delivered and received by

Olalia at the same time as the renewal card. However, Olalia

denies ever having applied for, much less receiving, the

extension card.

2.4. As evidenced by charge slips presented and identified in

court, it was found that the extension card in the name of

Cristina G. Olalia was used for purchases made from March to

April 1991, particularly in the province of Iloilo and the City of

Bacolod. Total unpaid charges from the use of this card

amounted to One Hundred One Thousand Eight Hundred

Forty-Four Pesos and Fifty-Four Centavos (P101, 844.54)

Philippine Currency.

2.5. BECC sent a demand letter to Olalia, to which the latter

denied liability saying that said purchases were not made

under his own credit card and that he did not apply for nor

receive the extension card in the name of his wife. He has

likewise not used or allowed anybody in his family to receive

or use the extension card. Moreover, his wife, from whom he

was already divorced, left for the States in 1986 and has since

resided there. In addition, neither he nor Cristina was in

Bacolod or Iloilo at the time the questioned purchases were

made. She was dropped as defendant by the trial court, in an

Order dated September 29, 1995.8

8 Records, at p.38.

10

2.6. A case for collection was filed by BECC before the RTC but

Olalia only admits responsibility for the amount of Thirteen

Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Three Pesos and Twenty-

Seven Centavos (P13, 883.27) Philippine Currency,

representing purchases made under his own credit card.

After trial on the merits, a decision was rendered as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering

defendant Eddie C. Olalia to pay plaintiff the sum of

Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Three Pesos

and Twenty-seven Centavos (P13, 883.27) Philippine

Currency with interest thereon at the legal rate from

June 18, 1991, until fully paid; and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”9

2.7. From the aforesaid decision, a Motion for Reconsideration was

filed, alleging that Olalia should also be held liable for the

purchases arising from the use of the extension card since he

allegedly received the same, as evidenced by his signature

appearing in the Renewal Card Acknowledgement Receipt and

by the express provision of paragraph 2 of the terms and

conditions governing the use and issuance of a BPI Express

Card, making the cardholder and his extension jointly and

severally liable for all purchases and availments made

through the use of the card.10

2.8. On April 28, 1995, the Motion for Reconsideration was granted

and an Order was issued, stating:

9 Rollo, p.18.10 See paragraph 2, Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of BPI Express Credit Cards, available at www.bpicards.com/page/60.

11

“Defendant Eddie C. Olalia has not filed any reaction

paper up to the present relative to plaintiff’s MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION dated December 20, 1994.

Finding the allegations in said motion to be

meritorious, the same is hereby granted.

WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of the decision

dated November 25, 1994, is reconsidered and

accordingly amended/corrected to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering

defendant Eddie C. Olalia to pay plaintiff the sum of

One Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety

Pesos and Ninety-Seven Centavos (P136, 290.97)

Philippine Currency, as of October 27, 1991. SO

ORDERED.”11

III. ISSUES

III.1 Whether or not the court committed an error for failing to

prove that the extension card in the name of Cristina G.

Olalia was validly issued and received by Eddie C. Olalia

when there was an evidence of his signature appearing in

the Renewal Card Acknowledgement Receipt and by the

express provision of paragraph 2 of the terms and

conditions governing the use and issuance of a BPI Express

Card, making the cardholder and his extension jointly and

severally liable for all purchases and availments made

through the use of the card.

11 Rollo, p.20.

12

III.2 Whether or not the court committed a mistake in rendering

a decision that Eddie C. Olalia is responsible for the

purchases made from the extension card thus ordering him

to pay the total amount of One Hundred Thirty-Six

Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Pesos and Ninety-Seven

Centavos (P136, 290.97) Philippine Currency.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The court failed to prove that the extension card in the name

of Cristina G. Olalia was validly issued and received by Eddie C.

Olalia.

4.1. Under Paragraph No. 11 of the Terms and Conditions

Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Express Credit

Card, the following is stated (former Paragraph No. 10 of

the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use

of the BPI Express Credit Card):

11. SUPPLEMENTARY CARDS – Extension of the

CARD issued to the Cardholder may be given to the

latter’s spouse or children upon payment of the

necessary fee thereof, and the submission of an

application for the purpose; and the use of such

CARD, as well as the extensions, thereof, shall be

governed by this Agreement, and secured by the

Surety Undertaking hereto. Any reference to the

CARD issued to the Cardholder hereafter shall also

13

apply to extensions and/or renewals. Should a CARD

be issued to the spouse/children of a Cardholder

upon the Cardholder’s request, the Cardholder shall

be responsible for all charges including all fees,

interest and other charges made through the CARD.

In the event of separation, legal or otherwise, the

Cardholder shall continue to be responsible for all

such charges to be made through the extension

CARD unless Cardholder request in writing that the

privileges of such extension Cardholder under this

Agreement be terminated provided all charges

incurred shall have been fully paid and satisfied.12

4.2. In the above stipulation, it is clear that there are two

requirements before an extension/supplementary card is

issued. First, payment of the necessary fee, and second,

submission of an application for the purpose. None of

these requirements were shown to have been complied

with by Olalia. The court found that in Olalia’s applications

for the original as well as the renewal card, he never

applied for an extension card in the name of his wife. BECC

also failed to show any receipt for any fee given in

payment for the purpose of securing an extension card.

4.3. BECC alleged that Eddie C. Olalia received the extension

card in the name of his wife, by presenting the Renewal

Card Acknowledgement Receipt wherein appellant affixed

12 See Paragraph No. 10, Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of BPI Express Credit Cards, available at www.bpicards.com/page/60.

14

his signature. Such is not a sufficient proof that the

requirements for the issuance of the extension card have

been complied with, especially in the face of appellant’s

firm denial.

4.4. Contracts of this nature are contracts of adhesion, so-

called because their terms are prepared by only one party

while the other merely affixes his signature signifying his

adhesion thereto.13 Article 1377 of the Civil Code applies

with even greater force in contracts of adhesion.14 As such,

their terms are construed strictly against the party who

drafted it.15 In this case, it was BECC who made the

foregoing stipulation, thus, they are now tasked to show

vigilance for its compliance.

4.5. BECC failed to explain why a card was issued without

accomplishment of the requirements. Moreover, BECC did

not even secure the specimen signature of the purported

extension cardholder, such that it cannot now counter

Eddie C. Olalia’s contention that the signatures appearing

on the charge slips of the questioned transactions were not

that of his former wife, Cristina G. Olalia.

4.6. Eddie C. Olalia did not indicate nor declare that he had a

spouse when he applied for a credit card with BECC. In

fact, at the time the extension card was issued and

13 Ermitaño vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127246, 306 SCRA 218, 224 (1999).14 Qua Chee Gan vs. La Union & Rock, Co., Inc. Co., Ltd., 98 Phil. 85; see also page 726, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated by Edgardo Paras (2012).15 Palmares vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126490, 288 SCRA 422, 433 (1998).

15

allegedly received by appellant, Cristina had long left the

Philippines.

B. The court committed mistake in rendering decision that

Eddie C. Olalia is responsible for the purchases made

from the extension card thus ordering him to pay the

total amount of One Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Two

Hundred Ninety Pesos and Ninety-Seven Centavos (P136,

290.97) Philippine Currency.

4.7. When the Motion for reconsideration filed by the appellee

was granted, the court then rendered a decision making

Eddie C. Olalia responsible for the purchases made on the

extension card. Appellant cannot be held responsible

because of the fact that BECC failed to establish that the

extension card in the name of Cristina G. Olalia was validly

issued and received by him. The time appellant applied

credit card with BECC in 1991, he and his wife Cristina

were already divorced. Also by the time the extension

card, which was under the name of Cristina G. Olalia, was

issued and allegedly received by the appellant, Cristina

was no longer in the Philippines. She left for States in the

year 1986.

V. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Appellant respectfully pray

that this Honorable Court:

16

1. Annul the decision dated April 28, 1995 on granting the

Motion for Reconsideration filed by the appllee against

the appellant.

2. Appellant not be held liable for the purchases made

under the extension card irregularly issued by the

appellee and used for purchases made by an

unauthorized party whose actions the respondent

could not be liable.

3. Appellant should only be made liable of the purchases

made under his own credit card in the amount of

Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Three Pesos

and Twenty-Seven Centavos (P13, 883. 27) Philippine

Currency, exclusive of interest and penalty thereon, if

any.

Appellant further prays for such other relief as may be just and

equitable in the premises.

Makati City, Manila, Philippines, this 14th day of December 2001.

VI. APPENDIX

Copy of the appealed order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 145,

Makati City, dated April 28, 1995 (Appendix “A”).

By Appellant’s Counsel:

Juan de la CruzPTR NO. 0016687/J AN 14, 2009/MAKATI CITY IBP NO. 775414/J AN 12, 2009/MAKATI CITY

17

ROLL NO. 49518 MCLE COMPLIANCE NO.II-0015132 JAN 5, 2009

De La Cruz & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRMUnit 301 Rose BuildingRaffles Drive, Makati AvenueMakati City, PhilippinesTel. No.: (032) 555-3799Fax : (032) 555-3855E-mail : delacruzlawfirm@yahoo.com

EXPLANATION

Due to the shortage of messengerial services and lack of time this

Appellant’s Brief is being served to the other parties by registered mail

in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.

COPY FURNISHED:

(2 COPIES)

MARIA E. REYESCounsel for Appellee BPI Express Card Corporation#12 Second Floor Lamp BuildingErnesto Street, Makati AvenueMakati City, Philippines

18