Coca-Cola vs.

Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 293

Facts: Respondent Lydia Geronimo was the proprietess of Kindergarten Wonderland Canteen, engaged in the sale of soft
drinks and other goods to the students of Kindergarten Wonderland and to the public. On August 12, 1989, some parents of
the students complained that the Coke and Sprite soft drinks contained fiber-like matter and other foreign substances. She
discovered the presence of some fiber-like substances in the contents of some unopened Coke bottles and a plastic matter
in the contents of an unopened Sprite bottle. The Department of Health informed her that the samples she submitted are
adulterated. Her sales of soft drinks plummeted, and not long after that, she had to close shop. She became jobless and
destitute. She demanded from the petitioner the payment of damages but was rebuffed by it. She then filed a complaint
before the RTC of Dagupan City, which granted the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner, on the ground that the complaint is
based on contract, and not on quasi-delict, as there exists pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Thus, on the
basis of Article 1571, in relation to Article 1562, the complaint should have been filed within six months from the delivery of
the thing sold. The CA reversed the RTC decision and held that Geronimo’s complaint is one for quasi-delict because of
petitioner’s act of negligently manufacturing adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption; and that the
existence of contractual relations between the parties does not absolutely preclude an action by one against the other for
quasi-delict arising from negligence in the performance of a contract. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the action for damages by the proprietess against the soft drinks manufacturer should be treated as
one for breach of implied warranty against hidden defects, which must be filed within six months from the delivery of the
thing sold, or one for quasi-delict, which can be filed within four years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

Held: The action in based on quasi-delict, therefore, it prescribes in four years. The allegations in the complaint makes a
reference to the reckless and negligent manufacture of “adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption.”
The vendee’s remedies are not limited to those prescribed in Article 1567 of the Civil Code. The vendor could be liable for
quasi-delict under Article 2176, and an action based thereon may be brought by the vendee.
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the other and the
consequent recovery of damages therefor. Liability for quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual
relations.