G.R. No. 253825 . July 06, 2022
GAISANO SUPERSTORE, INC. (VALENCIA CITY BRANCH), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FRANK RHEDEY AND JOCELYN RHEDEY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Rhedey purchased Cadbury chocolate bars from petitioner Gaisano Superstore in September 2007 and again in January 2008. On both occasions, upon opening the chocolates, they discovered the products were infested with maggots, maggot eggs, and cobwebs. They reported the incidents to Cadbury Adams Philippines, Inc., which offered compensation after the first incident and promised an investigation after the second. Dissatisfied, respondents filed a complaint with the Department of Health (DOH). The DOH purchased a sample from the same store, and laboratory tests confirmed the chocolate was unfit for consumption. However, the DOH dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the claim for damages.
Respondents subsequently filed a case for damages against Cadbury and Gaisano in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The case against Cadbury was archived due to failure of service of summons. Petitioner Gaisano, in its defense, argued that respondents had no cause of action, claiming the complaint was barred by laches and prescription and that respondents failed to attach proof of purchase (receipts) to the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Gaisano Superstore is liable for damages despite respondents’ failure to present the sales receipts for the infested chocolate bars.

RULING

Yes, petitioner is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that the absence of a receipt is not fatal to respondents’ claim. The Court emphasized that a receipt is not the sole or conclusive evidence of a purchase transaction. The fact of purchase can be established by other evidence, such as credible testimonial evidence. Here, the positive and detailed testimony of respondent Frank Rhedey, corroborated by the testimony of petitioner’s own witness who admitted that Cadbury chocolates were pulled from store displays following the initial complaint, sufficiently established that the infested products were bought from Gaisano.
The legal logic rests on the provisions of the Consumer Act ( Republic Act No. 7394 ) and principles of negligence. As a seller engaged in commerce, petitioner had a statutory duty to ensure the products it sold were safe for consumption. By selling contaminated goods, it breached this duty and was negligent. The temperate damages awarded by the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were justified as respondents suffered a pecuniary loss that could not be proven with exactitude. The Supreme Court modified the award by reclassifying the P10,000.00 actual damages as attorney’s fees, pursuant to Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, as respondents were compelled to litigate to protect their interests. Legal interest was also imposed on the monetary awards from finality until full payment. The petition was denied for lack of merit.