REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

FERNANDO POE,

Appellant

CA GR CV NO. 3018

-versus- RTC CIVIL CASE NO. 05-401

For: Motion for

Reconsideration on the

decision dated November

25, 1994

NETELLER EXPRESS CARD,

Appellee

Pursuant to the

Notice of this Honorable Court,

Appellant

FERNANDO POE

By counsel most respectfully submits his

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

SUBJECT INDEX

1
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 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

2
 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

Article 1377 of the CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 14

WEBSITE

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

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

3
 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.

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

4
 (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. 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:

1
Records, p. 38.

5
 “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

1.5. 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.

2
Rollo, p.18.
3
See paragraph 2, Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of BPI Express Credit Cards,
available at www.bpicards.com/page/60.

6
 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.”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.

4
Rollo, p.20.
5
Rollo, p.18.

7
 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.”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).

6
Rollo, p.20
7
Records, at p.4.

8
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 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

9
 dropped as defendant by the trial court, in an Order dated September

29, 1995.8

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

8
Records, at p.38.
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.

10
 2.8. 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. SO ORDERED.”11

III. ISSUES

3.1 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

11
Rollo, p.20.

11
 liable for all purchases and availments made through the use of the

card.

3.2 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 apply to extensions and/or renewals. Should a

12
 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 his signature.

Such is not a sufficient proof that the requirements for the issuance

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.

13
 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 allegedly received by appellant,

Cristina had long left the Philippines.

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).

14
 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:

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

15
 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:

RODY B. GARCIA
PTR NO. 0016687/J AN 14, 2009/MAKATI CITY
IBP NO. 775414/J AN 12, 2009/MAKATI CITY
ROLL NO. 49518
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO.II-0015132 JAN 5, 2009

BINANGKAL & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM

Unit 301 Rose Building
Raffles Drive, Makati Avenue
Makati City, Philippines
Tel. No.: (032) 555-3799
Fax : (032) 555-3855
E-mail : delacruzlawfirm@yahoo.com

16
 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. REYES
Counsel for Appellee BPI Express Card Corporation
#12 Second Floor Lamp Building
Ernesto Street, Makati Avenue
Makati City, Philippines

17