EMMANUEL B. AZNAR v. CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines) G.R. No. 164273

EMMANUEL B. AZNAR v. CITIBANK, N.A.,

(Philippines)

G.R. No. 164273

NATURE: CERTIORARI

Facts:

Aznar, a known businessman in Cebu, is a holder of a preferred Mastercard issued by Citibank with a credit limit of P150,000.00. As he and his wife, Zoraida, planned to take their two grandchildren, on an Asian tour, Aznar made a total advance deposit of P485,000.00 with Citibank with the intention of increasing his credit limit to P635,000.00. With the use of his Mastercard, Aznar purchased plane tickets to Kuala Lumpur for his group worth P237,000.00.

During the trip, Aznar claims that when he presented his Mastercard in some establishments in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the same was not honoured and when he tried to use the same in Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency (Ingtan Agency) in Indonesia to purchase plane tickets to Bali, it was again dishonored for the reason that his card was blacklisted by Citibank. Such dishonor forced him to buy the tickets in cash. Aznar filed a complaint for damages against Citibank, claiming that Citibank fraudulently or with gross negligence blacklisted his Mastercard which forced him, his wife and grandchildren to abort important tour destinations and prevented them from buying certain items in their tour. He further claimed that he suffered mental anguish,

serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation and social humiliation due to the wrongful blacklisting of his card

To prove that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard, Aznar presented a computer print-out, denominated as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT

ACTIVITY REPORT, issued to him by Ingtan Agency  which shows that his card in question was "DECL OVERLIMIT" or declared over the limit. Citibank denied the allegation that it blacklisted Aznar’s card. To prove that they did not blacklist

Aznar’s card, Citibank’s Credit Card Department Head, Dennis Flores, presented Warning Cancellation Bulletins, which contained the list of its canceled cards covering the period of Aznar’s trip. Aznar’s wasn’t in the list.

RTC of Cebu dismissed Aznar’s complaint for lack of merit and held that as between the computer print-out presented by Aznar and the Warning Cancellation Bulletins presented by Citibank, the latter had more weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by Citibank.Also held that even if it as shown that Aznar’s credit card was dishonored by a merchant establishment, Citibank was not shown to have acted with malice or bad faith when the same was

dishonored.

Aznar filed a MFR with motion to re-raffle the case saying that Judge Marcos could not be impartial as he himself is a holder of a Citibank credit card. The case was re-raffled with the new judge granting Aznar’s MR saying that it was improbable that a man of Aznar’s

stature would fabricate the computer print-out which shows that Aznar’s Mastercard was dishonored for the reason that it was declared over the limit; Exh. "G" was

printed out by Nubi in the ordinary or regular course of business in the modern credit card industry and Nubi was not able to testify as she was in a foreign country and cannot be reached by subpoena; taking judicial notice of the practice of automated teller machines (ATMs) and credit card facilities which readily print out bank account status, Exh. "G" can be received as prima facie evidence of the dishonor of Aznar’s Mastercard; no rebutting evidence was presented by Citibank to prove that Aznar’s Mastercard was not dishonored, as all it proved was that said credit card was not included in the blacklisted cards; when Citibank accepted the additional deposit of P485,000.00 from Aznar, there was an implied novation and Citibank was obligated to increase Aznar’s credit limit and ensure that Aznar will not encounter any embarrassing situation with the use of his Mastercard; Citibank’s failure to comply with its obligation constitutes gross negligence as it caused Aznar inconvenience, mental anguish and social humiliation; the fine prints in the flyer of the credit card limiting the liability of the bank to P1,000.00 or the actual damage proven, whichever is lower, is a contract of adhesion which must be interpreted against Citibank.

Citibank filed an appeal with the CA and its counsel filed an administrative case against Judge De la Peña for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and incompetence, claiming among others that said judge rendered his decision without having read the

transcripts. The administrative case was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeal filed by Citibank with the CA.

CA ruled that: Aznar had no personal knowledge of the blacklisting of his card and only presumed the same when it was dishonored in certain establishments; such dishonor is not sufficient to prove that his card was blacklisted by Citibank; Exh. "G" is an electronic

document ,which must be authenticated pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence or under Sect.20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by anyone who saw the document executed or written; Aznar, however, failed to prove the authenticity of Exh. "G", thus it must be excluded; the unrefuted testimony of Aznar that his credit card was dishonored by Ingtan Agency and certain establishments abroad is not sufficient to justify the award of damages in his favor, absent any showing that Citibank had anything to do with the said dishonor; Citibank had no absolute control over the actions of its merchant affiliates, thus it should not be held liable for the dishonor of Aznar’s credit card by said establishments.

Aznar’s MR was denied by the CA.

As regards the admin case, J. Dela Pena was adjudged

guilty.