BPI Express Card Corporation vs. Olalia (372 SCRA 399)

06 Mar


vs. EDDIE C. OLALIA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 131086.  December 14, 2001]


Respondent was issued by the petitioner a credit card under his name. Upon renewal, petitioner issued in addition a supplementary card in the name of respondent’s wife. Respondent denies application. The supplementary card accumulated a purchase of over P100k. Petitioner demanded payment but respondent refused to pay. The RTC ordered respondent to pay only the purchase of its principal card but was reversed after the filing of Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the original decision of the RTC.


Whether or not the (1) credit card issued to respondent’s wife is valid, and (2) respondent be held liable for its purchases.


(1) NO. The issuance of the supplementary card shall only be upon payment of necessary fee and submission of application from the principal for the purpose. Contracts of adhesion are to be construed strictly against the party who drafted it.

(2) NO. Respondent should not be held liable for the purchase made under the so-called extension or supplementary card as petitioner failed to explain why a card was issued without accomplishment of requirements. It did not even secured specimen signatures of purported extension cardholder to compare with charge slips. Respondent is liable only for the purchases made under his own credit card.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: